Slashdot Mirror


Wages Aren't the Only Reason Teachers Are Striking (axios.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Schools in 39 of 50 states have seen decreases in funding for instructional materials for their students, according to data from the Urban Institute. These conditions have sparked a wave of teacher activism across the country. Educators have had to pay for supplies themselves to provide new materials for students at times. Teachers' salaries aren't enough to pay for materials, either. In some cases they have to pay for materials for dozens of children. Teachers are having to teach students with materials that are defective, outdated and inefficient because of a lack of funding going to state education budgets -- particularly in Republican states.

336 of 514 comments (clear)

  1. Parents? by sickre · · Score: 2, Informative

    In my country its up to the parents to buy textbooks and materials for their children. Why isn't it like that in the USA? Or do only rich White or Asian parents do that, not the poor or Black or Hispanic parents?

    1. Re:Parents? by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In part, because our tax money ( and a percentage of lottery winnings ) are supposed to go to the schools.

      But of course politicians get their grimy little hands on a budget, and it all goes to shit. This is in part why I

      A) Almost always vote against the incumbent
      B) *ALWAYS* *ALWAYS* *ALWAYS* vote against tax increases.

      They have enough of my cash. If they can't pay for basic services with the stacks of green they pull out of my ass, that's they're fuck up not mine, and I won't fund any further idiocy.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:Parents? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We take care of our books and save them for the next generation of students. That's the idea, anyway, and it mostly works.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Parents? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      In my country its up to the parents to buy textbooks and materials for their children. Why isn't it like that in the USA? Or do only rich White or Asian parents do that, not the poor or Black or Hispanic parents?

      Buy their own binders, papers, and pencils sure. But textbooks?

      I'm not sure what country you live in but that seems like a bizarrely inefficient system. Every student needs the same textbooks and they don't serve the student after the end of the school year. Forcing the parents to buy them just creates a big inefficient resale market where there's no need for one.

      Making the parents buy the textbooks is effectively just a poorly administered tax on parents.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Parents? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Universities and colleges in the US don't provide textbooks out of tuition costs. Pushing it down a level or two makes just as much sense as not doing so.

    5. Re:Parents? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      In my country its up to the parents to buy textbooks and materials for their children. Why isn't it like that in the USA? Or do only rich White or Asian parents do that, not the poor or Black or Hispanic parents?

      I like how you worked a racist comment into that last (incomplete) clause.

    6. Re:Parents? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      In my country its up to the parents to buy textbooks and materials for their children. Why isn't it like that in the USA? Or do only rich White or Asian parents do that, not the poor or Black or Hispanic parents?

      That's what college students do, and book publishers realized that they have a captive audience of consumers that *have* to buy books every year (thanks to (often) unnecessary to book editions that ensure used book are nearly useless), and books end up costing over $1000USD/year.

      It turns out that when a business is faced with a consumer that *has* to buy their product, they don't have any incentive to keep prices low.

    7. Re:Parents? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      They have enough of my cash. If they can't pay for basic services

      How do you know they have enough of cash? What are they spending the money on that you want to not spend money on.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, At university you buy the textbook at a ridiculously high price. There used to be all kinds of excuses such as the high cost of making an archival quality book, etc. but those have mostly fallen by the wayside. At the moment, it just seems to be accepted that they have you over a barrel and that's that. A lot of universities also simply require that you buy the textbook at the university bookstore, rather than online, or from another student who has taken the class, etc. At the end of the semester, you may be able to sell the book back to the university bookstore for a small fraction of what you paid, then they'll sell it used for a tiny discount off the new price.

      It's basically an exploitive, captive market. Seeing the same thing happen to pre-university education would be a tragedy.

    9. Re:Parents? by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Universities and colleges in the US don't provide textbooks out of tuition costs. Pushing it down a level or two makes just as much sense as not doing so.

      I worked at a rural school district for a while and part of my job was doing analysis of student performance compared to various out-of-school factors. I was stunned and humbled to find out how many of the kids literally had no permanent home. They'd move throughout the school district several times a year because their families were couch-surfing from house to house. And these weren't high-school kids (almost adults)... these were kids younger than 10. Their only regular meals came from the school.

      With kids in this kind of situation, there's no way their parents are buying books when they can't even feed them and put a roof over their heads.

    10. Re:Parents? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      book publishers realized that they have a captive audience of consumers that *have* to buy books every year (thanks to (often) unnecessary to book editions

      It would be simple enough for the school to keep using the old edition.

    11. Re:Parents? by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the solution is let the kids remain ignorant? Do you suppose not teaching them a lesson will teach the politicians a lesson?

    12. Re:Parents? by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      The US university textbook system should not be used as a model for anything.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Parents? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sheesh... Talk about completely un-productive voting habits...

      If you vote out your politicians regardless if they do a good job that doesn't exactly promote responsible government as you don't have the chance of being voted out if you do a bad job driving you to actually do a good job. Instead you have the certainty of being voted out ensuring that you really don't need to give as damn as any issues you end up causing, like say a serious budget shortfall due to excessive tax cuts, is going to be the your replacement's problems.

      As for the "no tax increases, never!"-attitude, that really doesn't work at all for tax revenue drops or increased costs, particularly unexpected ones (like natural disasters). The only options that leaves you with are cutting down on essential services, taking on debt or moving around money in the budget like how they move away money that's supposed to go to education into other essential services when lottery money starts coming in.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    14. Re:Parents? by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      In my country its up to the parents to buy textbooks and materials for their children. Why isn't it like that in the USA? Or do only rich White or Asian parents do that, not the poor or Black or Hispanic parents?

      Buy their own binders, papers, and pencils sure. But textbooks?

      I'm not sure what country you live in but that seems like a bizarrely inefficient system. Every student needs the same textbooks and they don't serve the student after the end of the school year. Forcing the parents to buy them just creates a big inefficient resale market where there's no need for one.

      Making the parents buy the textbooks is effectively just a poorly administered tax on parents.

      Yeah we had a name for this at my school. In addition to the classroom books that every student used there was the big room full of lots of books on lots of subject you could go and borrow if you needed, the name totally escapes me now.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    15. Re:Parents? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, At university you buy the textbook at a ridiculously high price. There used to be all kinds of excuses such as the high cost of making an archival quality book, etc. but those have mostly fallen by the wayside. At the moment, it just seems to be accepted that they have you over a barrel and that's that. A lot of universities also simply require that you buy the textbook at the university bookstore, rather than online, or from another student who has taken the class, etc. At the end of the semester, you may be able to sell the book back to the university bookstore for a small fraction of what you paid, then they'll sell it used for a tiny discount off the new price.

      It's basically an exploitive, captive market. Seeing the same thing happen to pre-university education would be a tragedy.

      That's what the internet is for. As long as you know the citation you don't need to actually own shit.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:Parents? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

      A-ha!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    17. Re:Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well no, as a parent it's pretty much your responsibility to make sure your kids get an appropriate education - the state offers it for free, but if you think that's ever been a high bar you should look at what past generations weren't taught (and what not being able to read or do math cost them).

      I have never put faith in our education system to teach my kids what they need to know - sure, they'll pick up *some* of the fundamentals, but if you're not willing to spend some time filling in the gaps you're a YUGE part of the problem.

    18. Re:Parents? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      since their bookstore sells you the books, and some of those were written by the professors.

      When I went to university, about half my books were from the university publisher/bookstore and they were sold at cost (maybe $5-$10 depending on how big the book was). The rest were just generic textbooks we got at a regular book store. Both were reused year after year.

    19. Re:Parents? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So far the theory, now the practice. In other words, prove the prof failed you because you refused to buy his book.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Parents? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, it could work as the "what to avoid" role model...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Parents? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If he couldn't make minor edits and teach from the last edition he would have to settle for the money he got directly from the school

      I don't see why that would be undesired. The teacher is hired to teach, not to run his private business.

      Also, the system should allow a student following an older book with minor differences can still pass all the tests. The tests should reflect the general knowledge you need to acquire the diploma/degree. When a hospital hires a surgeon, nobody cares about which version of the anatomy textbook he/she used.

    22. Re:Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only hey, the school library generally wouldn't have 40 copies of the same book (or even 10) to accommodate the fifty or so students that couldn't afford them.

      The real travesty is that the "required materials" are frequently not updated from the earlier year - maybe a few paragraphs were swapped or chapters reversed, but the INFORMATION remains the same. Requiring students or their parents to spend over $100 on a blatant cash grab when there is simply no recourse - you can either not get your degree, or you can spend $600+ a semester on last year's information with a shiny new cover.

      These are the sorts of things that regulations are meant to correct...it's too bad we have such a reduction of regulation to make sure that the things we have, can stay nice.

    23. Re:Parents? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "because of a lack of funding going to state education budgets -- particularly in Republican states." - people should stop voting republicans in....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    24. Re:Parents? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is true. A great case study in what to avoid. They should teach it in business school except they would probably see it as a positive situation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    25. Re:Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you could just inform yourself and vote for an honest politician, campaign for this politiician, or even run as an honest politician yourself. Don't you think that's more productive?

    26. Re:Parents? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that America is "the wealthiest nation on Earth", at least per capita, but it surely is the most conceited one.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    27. Re:Parents? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ideally, yes. But not all parents actually know the material themselves. Even where they do, schools have a bad habit of expecting the knowledge in a specific form and marking off on correct answers if the reasoning doesn't parrot the book.

      Math (arithmetic) is a classic example. It's not enough to be good at arithmetic, you have to understand "new math" or they'll get marked wrong even with correct answers. So even a parent who excels in the subject may not be much help.

      Then there are single parents with more than one job. They may simply not have enough left at the end of their day to be much help to the kids.

      Or, perhaps they got the same crappy "education" when they were in school.

    28. Re: Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Federal funding for education makes up about 1% of total state budgets in the USA. The problem is, as highlighted in the summary above, that some states are deliberately underfunding education. This means that if you want your kids to have a decent education you have to live in or move to a state that doesn't underfund it. Poor people can't afford to move or to leave their family and community support networks.

    29. Re:Parents? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Almost always vote against the incumbent

      In women's tennis, I always root against the heterosexual.

    30. Re:Parents? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, politicians contribute to the real problem, which is bureaucrats. In particular, a proliferation of administrative positions.

      Related to that is the failure of consolidated school districts. The theory of consolidated school districts is economy of scale. However, the largest cost of education is personnel and larger schools actually need more personnel per student than smaller schools. If you have a one room school house, you need A teacher. If you scale up so that you have 5 rooms of students, you need 5 teachers AND a principal. As you scale up further you need ever more administrative personnel per student, without ever decreasing the number of teachers you need per student. You may actually need more teachers per student. In that one room school house the older students may aid the teacher in communicating the lessons, lessons they had been taught in previous years, to the younger students. More importantly, the older students are exposed to the basic lessons year after year, resulting in those lessons being reinforced over time.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    31. Re:Parents? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      You actually need Republicans to stop trying to limit access to them.

      --
      That is all.
    32. Re:Parents? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2

      As for the "no tax increases, never!"-attitude, that really doesn't work at all for tax revenue drops or increased costs, particularly unexpected ones (like natural disasters). The only options that leaves you with are cutting down on essential services, taking on debt or moving around money in the budget like how they move away money that's supposed to go to education into other essential services when lottery money starts coming in.

      You left out the obvious option: cutting non-essential services. This is what every business and household does when revenue drops. Maybe we don't eat out as often or see movies in the theater. Maybe 500 cable channels aren't so important. We don't quit eating, but we do cut stuff that we don't need.

      Education has a lot of bloat in it, but mainly at the administrative level. What we see time and again is that giving more money to "education" doesn't end up as raises for teachers. It ends up with non-essential stuff. Plenty has been written about this:

      http://reason.com/archives/201...

      "Since 1970, inflation-adjusted spending per pupil has doubled.... Teachers should indeed be paid better—and it’s worth asking why they haven’t gained more from the big increases in education spending over the past few decades."

      Reason had a good article a few years ago showing what happened when a certain state increased education funding - it all went to lavish new offices for administrators. Not a penny went to teachers.

    33. Re: Parents? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      But thatâ(TM)s not necessarily âoethe systemâ(TM)sâ fault. In most cases, these parents have choices, they just choose poorly. Even at minimum wage or unemployment income in the US youâ(TM)re making sufficient money, especially in rural areas, to get a living space and money. Sure it may not be the best and you wonâ(TM)t be able to afford drugs, alcohol and cigarettes but itâ(TM)s sufficient. Iâ(TM)ve lived in more expensive cities around the world on smaller budgets with spouses and even kids.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    34. Re:Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't see why that would be undesired. The teacher is hired to teach, not to run his private business.

      That's not how Universities are these days. Many faculty use their position as a side income and use their research, writing, and side businesses as their real jobs. We have some "full time" faculty here that are rarely seen: too busy with their companies. Deans and chairs won't call them on it because that might come back to derail their gravy train when they have lucrative side income too.

    35. Re:Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are they spending the money on that you want to not spend money on.

      Educating illegals. In the California well over a quarter are illegals or anchor babies. Plus the dollars spent teaching them in various languages adds to the cost.

    36. Re:Parents? by skids · · Score: 1

      If more people treated government with the suspicion and hostility I do ( ie: what they deserve ), we'd be in a much better place.

      If and only if they also find other avenues to give substantial amounts of money to sectors of the economy undervalued by the free market.

      Without that, despite the graft, taxes are the best way to get things done.

    37. Re: Parents? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Depends on the professor, depends on the class being taught. While I was in college, I had a few classes where there was only one textbook, and it was inexpensive, although that was largely because it was a history or other liberal arts course. (For one history class, the book was actually written by the professor.)

      But Computer Science? Expensive, pretty much across the board. And when they're in the process of switching over from teaching C++ to other languages? There was a bit of a kerfuffle in what textbooks to order for what classes.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    38. Re:Parents? by fred6666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In part, because our tax money ( and a percentage of lottery winnings ) are supposed to go to the schools.

      But of course politicians get their grimy little hands on a budget, and it all goes to shit. This is in part why I

      A) Almost always vote against the incumbent
      B) *ALWAYS* *ALWAYS* *ALWAYS* vote against tax increases.

      They have enough of my cash. If they can't pay for basic services with the stacks of green they pull out of my ass, that's they're fuck up not mine, and I won't fund any further idiocy.

      The USA is one of the less taxed developed country. Don't be surprised if your public services suck. You get what you pay for.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    39. Re:Parents? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      With kids in this kind of situation, there's no way their parents are buying books when they can't even feed them and put a roof over their heads.

      When the decision makers all have security from the mundane details of life, the mundane details tend to not have any importance and are seen to be illusory.

      What this means is that just because there was one kid, somewhere in rural America, that lived in a couch surfing world, the world is not falling apart and more important things need to be dealt with, like reducing taxes on what gives the decision makers their security in the first place.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    40. Re:Parents? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what country you come from, but when I was brought up in Britain, parents didn't have to buy anything like that for their children. That would be considered a regressive tax that would effectively prevent poorer children from getting the same level of education as their richer classmates.

      I now live in the US, where there's a semi-voluntary thing going on where parents are encouraged to donate school supplies. I find that bad enough.

      I pay taxes. My children will, if educated properly, pay more taxes in future than if they're not educated properly. The ability of someone to become a contributor to society should not depend upon the wealth of their parents, and children shouldn't be punished, deprived of a future, due to their parent's financial situation. Society, as expressed through our government, should pay for education.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    41. Re:Parents? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      The vast majority of K-12 education is funded through state and local taxes. Exactly 0 of this is sent to the DoD.

    42. Re:Parents? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Public school education is and should be a local responsibility. Tying it somehow to national defense is wrong and misleading.

      However, it's also instructive that local government most often cuts or neglects the core responsibilities when money gets tight; fire protection, police, schools. Do they cut PR flaks and managers? If local government is in fact operating close to the bone, any cuts have to be across the board. No department should be fatter than another.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    43. Re:Parents? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I used to think that voting out the incumbents would result in a bureaucracy in control of the system, unelected, unaccountable, out of control.

      Turns out this is happening anyways.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    44. Re: Parents? by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should research why books at University bookstores are so expensive.

      Here's a hint for you: it's the university college bookstore markup that makes it expensive.

    45. Re:Parents? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      In my opinion giving the government more taxes is like giving booze to an alcoholic. They can't properly make use of or handle what they currently have. Why give them more incentive to keep doing the same?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    46. Re: Parents? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head. As others have pointed out Algebra and Trig haven't changed since Isaac Newton but somehow books need revisions every year.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    47. Re: Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Common core:
      5x3 = 3+3+3+3+3 = 15 (Correct answer)
      5x3 = 5+5+5 = 15 (Wrong answer)

      Old math = 5x3 is 15 due to memorization of multiplication tables.

    48. Re: Parents? by kenh · · Score: 1

      The issue with common core is it has three components and people are rarely discussing the same component when they discuss common core.

      Common core is a set of loosely defined goals, not a defined list of facts and concepts children need to learn.

      To adopt Common core a district has to redesign their curriculum, to save time, districts will buy textbooks with common core 'baked in'.

      To teach common core, the teacher needs to turn the pre-fab curriculum into actual class work.

      Most supporters defend the first part, the loosely defined goals, most critics attack the ham-fisted attempts individual teachers have trying to teach the material they were given. Don't believe me, watch politicians argue That common core raises standards, and that's a good thing while parents wave incomprehensible worksheets in the air and attack common core.

      --
      Ken
    49. Re: Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're telling me that with an extensive math background, common core, which is successfully taught to millions of children who can barely count, was too confusing for you?

      Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. Perhaps it requires someone with no background of math or ability to count in order to make sense. Even my kid couldn't make sense of it. My kid's teacher admitted that it would have been better to transition for new inbound Kindergartners rather than switch fifth graders over in midstream.

      I'll be honest -- this sounds like laziness more than anything.

      I'll be honest. It was an ill thought out mess.

    50. Re:Parents? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      These people have an absolute hard-on when it comes to new buildings. When I worked at the college the administration decided they wanted a new building. Everyone opposed it but the administration who was successful in stamping out debate and who held the purse strings (issuance of debt actually). Some lucky broker house in New York got to issue a bond (for a southern Ohio country school) and we went into debt during a time when student enrollemnts where dropping dramatically (recently cut in half at the time they built the new building). The art department, by far the most vibrant and enjoyable community inside the college, was decimated in the process--gone. The art department and its students and alumni were probably the only group you could have called a community at all. Everyone else was at each other's throats most of the time or had little engagement from the students.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    51. Re: Parents? by kenh · · Score: 1

      Common core is a set of goals, not a specific curriculum - it defines what children should be taught, not HOW it should be taught.

      To be honest, it sounds like you've never had a chi!d go through this...

      For example, children are taught to approximate things like 4 + 5, and are expected to say "4 is almost 5, and 5 + 5 is 10, so the answer is "about 10" answering " 9" earns your child a failure on that question. Children are taught this approximation lesson AFTER being taught addition, so they are confused when getting the right answer is wrong.

      --
      Ken
    52. Re:Parents? by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Though, as a student you can make a stand and teachers (who do not get a cut typically) don't care if you use a book that you bought on Amazon for $9 that is a five years old. They mix up the chapters a bit but it is still doable. I refused to keep buying new text books for $120 when I could get the same thing for literally $10. Navigating the mixed up chapters was not a hindrance and the teachers didn't mind if there was a small blip in content. Most of them hate the text book system. My math professor wrote his own books and sold them in the bookstore for cost--much better experience. He was a ferocious rebel and rabble-rouser in the professor's union.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    53. Re: Parents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that all the shitty kids that ruin schools have to go somewhere.

      Private schools get to pretend they're excellent because they just eject / never accept the bad kids. Public schools don't have that luxury.

      If private schools were forced to accept all applicants and only expel for similar cause to public schools, you'd see private schools crash and burn. Public schools would look like paradise by comparison, because they've spent half a century getting better at dealing with hard problems.

    54. Re:Parents? by fishthegeek · · Score: 2

      Well no, as a parent it's pretty much your responsibility to make sure your kids get an appropriate education

      That is ridiculous. We do not (can not) regulate who can become a parent and it is in all of our interest to make sure that people around us are as educated as possible. It is wrong headed and short sighted to assume that you do not have a responsibility to help with the education of the community you live in.

      --
      load "$",8,1
    55. Re:Parents? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      However, it's also instructive that local government most often cuts or neglects the core responsibilities when money gets tight; fire protection, police, schools.

      That's because that's where their budget is. 50+% of the total budget is education. Police and fire make up 50+% of the remaining budget. After that you get into lots of smaller budget items.

      Even "across the board" cuts will necessarily be focused on education, police and fire.

      (Budgets used are US-based)

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    56. Re:Parents? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Best way to indoctrinate the masses is to keep them ignorant to what's happening up top. Look to any dictatorship - past or present - and you'll see that the way they maintain power is to keep the masses in the dark. The Great Firewall of China, Iranian sensorship of the internet, assorted countries outlawing speaking ill of leadership (China, Thailand...). There are recent historical examples, but I don't want to Godwin this thread so soon...

    57. Re:Parents? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      In my country its up to the parents to buy textbooks and materials for their children.

      And you pay significantly less tax for that. If some of your tax was specifically earmarked for buying text books for students, and the schools weren't doing it, you'd be upset about it too.

      Theoretically the schools re-use the textbooks each year. But some of the publishers have manipulated government officials to upgrade to new editions approximately every 2-3 years. Honestly I don't think much changes in the field of science that it would affect a 6th grade science textbook. Poorer schools keep the textbooks in class and don't send them home with students, which makes homework and study problematic.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    58. Re:Parents? by kenh · · Score: 1

      In America, it is illegal to require students (or their families) to purchase anything for their education - public education is free and provided equally to all.

      --
      Ken
    59. Re:Parents? by kenh · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what country you live in but that seems like a bizarrely inefficient system.

      The less-bizarrely inefficient US system has school districts changing textbooks on the whim of department heads to include the latest changes in the SJW world.

      In the US schools are leasing/subscribing to on-line textbooks, then buying laptops/chrome books to read them on - how marvelously efficient that is, that means you can change textbooks year after year as suits your fancy, and never have to inventory the books. Of course, broken laptops/chromebooks and supporting an adequate WIFI network in each school to access textbook servers is another matter...

      --
      Ken
    60. Re: Parents? by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 1

      If anyone said 5+5+5 = 15 is wrong for 5x3, I'd slap them with the Associative Law of Multiplication. 5x3 = 3x5

    61. Re:Parents? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      In my country its up to the parents to buy textbooks and materials for their children. Why isn't it like that in the USA? Or do only rich White or Asian parents do that, not the poor or Black or Hispanic parents?

      Because our taxes are supposed to go to schools, to cover everything including books and supplies. Sadly that is not the case, and I have had to buy text books out of pocket even though I pay a shit load of taxes. And I live, supposedly, in one of the best, wealthiest public school districts in the nation.

      In hindsight, I should have bought somewhere cheaper (or rent) and sent my kid to private school. Plenty of good zip codes with decent, safe living standards that don't happen to have A+ rated schools.

      Head my words as parental advice. Buying to be in the best possible school district is a shit game, for all schools are afflicted by a lack of supplies, regardless of how much taxes you put in.

    62. Re: Parents? by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 1

      Commutative Law of Multiplication*

    63. Re: Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So 7+5 = 10+5-3 = 12 is "wrong"? Just remembering that 7+5=12 is "wrong"?

    64. Re:Parents? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      Well no, as a parent it's pretty much your responsibility to make sure your kids get an appropriate education

      This is absolutely true, however...

      the state offers it for free It's not for free. We pay significant amount of moolah as taxes that are supposed to go to our schools. The system is broken, though.

      but if you think that's ever been a high bar you should look at what past generations weren't taught (and what not being able to read or do math cost them).

      I have never put faith in our education system to teach my kids what they need to know - sure, they'll pick up *some* of the fundamentals, but if you're not willing to spend some time filling in the gaps you're a YUGE part of the problem.

      The problem here is one of selective thinking. Consider this:

      My wife and I are college educated, suffiently well off so that my wife only works part time and can stay with my daughters to make sure all homework is done. Additionally, they are exposed to extra curricular activities, private tutoring and a multi-lingual education. When summer break comes, they go to summer boot camp... and more tutoring.

      Learning never stops... because I have the money to afford it.

      What happens to the average American family who are likely w/o a college education, do not know the material beyond simple math and reading, and who cannot afford tutoring? Who cannot come home until after 5 because they work (thus kid remain unattended, which is very critical for behavioral development)?

      And what happens when summer break come? No summer camp for you. Almost 3 months of idle time without practicing what they learned through the school year. Right there they are at a learning/social disadvantage compared to, say, my kids.

      Do that for 12 years, and that translates to a 4-year educational gap in the worst (and sadly) common case scenario.

      Our system is built to perpetuate a disparity in terms of educational gains and accrual of social capital. Kids who are no less brighter than mine are, simply as a function of numbers, condemned to enter the work force with a 4-year educational gap at best!. Yes, parents are key to ensure education takes hold. But society short changes people at the 2 lower quintiles.

      As MLK said, "It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps."

    65. Re: Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The thing is, if the comm,on core creates the mandate and then just handwaves the practical matter of actually teaching the material, then by virtue of being incomplete, it is deserving of the criticism.

      It's like telling the teachers, "Look, just make the kids talk gooder" and then wondering what went wrong.

    66. Re: Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So your contention is that all parents should go back to elementary school to learn flavor of the week arithmetic even if they have been using plain old arithmetic successfully for decades as a daily part of their work?

      Or, barring that, that the school bears no responsibility for expecting parents to help their kids with math homework but not sending out a booklet "Super duper double secret new math for parents who already know how to add"?

      What's really funny is people pushing "common core" in exactly the same way they used to push the now discredited "new math" as the obviously correct solution. By the time the kids graduate and have kids, it will be something else and they will be just as befuddled trying to help their kids.

    67. Re: Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except, I saw Rush on the Colbert Report attempt their own song on Guitar Hero and earn "Epic Fail". So apparently actual ability to play the real instrument is at least unhelpful to playing Guitar Hero.

      I guess that makes you the guy who thinks he's an actual guitar hero because he gets high scores in the game.

    68. Re:Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The correct answer is to demand that the administrators be fired, not the already proven failure of trying to "starve the beast" knowing that the wasters at the top will be the last to starve long after the teachers resort to using chalk like rocks found outside to draw on the board.

    69. Re:Parents? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Choosing not to have sex doesn't cost a thing!

    70. Re:Parents? by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      Gigantic pensions, for starters. These things are eating our budgets alive. And before you go blaming the 07-08 crash, realize that markets and tax receipts have mostly recovered from that And there STILL isn't enough money to pay these pensions.

    71. Re:Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That doesn't help parents who are supposed to help the kids with their homework. Now imagine that instead of Java, the boss wants it in the new language he just invented yesterday, but he has no documentation for it other than a hello world you can look at.

      And the essay the teacher wants? Must be written phonetically in Cyrillic for some unknown reason but parents are expected to proof read it.

    72. Re: Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the teachers expect the parents to help, then they have to teach in a way that the parents CAN help. And if each teacher has a different method, then the grading must be about the final result, not how it was arrived at (barring copying from someone else).

    73. Re: Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, it's not harder, it's just not done in lockstep with the regimented way you learned it.

    74. Re:Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      They have figured it out. They spend the first 80 percent on a new building for them and poay raises for them, the other 20% goes to the schools. Cut the budget by 10% and they'll just spend the first 90% on them and 10% on the schools.

      The problem is them. Kick their asses out if you want to solve the problem.

    75. Re:Parents? by sjames · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to curb flavor of the day 'New math'.

      Of course, if we confine schools to only teach what all of the parents know, we might as well just send the kids to the park and tell them to go wild.

    76. Re:Parents? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If you have a one room school house, you need A teacher. If you scale up so that you have 5 rooms of students, you need 5 teachers AND a principal.

      The students get a better education because of that. Now there's a science teacher and a math teacher who actually studied those subjects, as opposed to that one teacher who is supposed to be great at everything, but often isn't.

      More importantly, the older students are exposed to the basic lessons year after year, resulting in those lessons being reinforced over time.

      Why have them learn basic arithmetic over and over again when they should be moving on to algebra, geometry and trigonometry? Isn't that just wasting their time?

    77. Re:Parents? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The students get a better education because of that.

      That is a nice theory, history suggests otherwise.. The most literate army in the history of the U.S. was the one which fought the Civil War and none of them were taught in anything larger than a one room school house.

      As to why being exposed to the lessons over and over is a good thing, I take it you have never been in a situation where you had to be retaught something you were taught once, years ago?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    78. Re:Parents? by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Great, so involvement at the municipal level is important then. It sounds like you need to put pressure on your local school board to fix things. Organize other people that feel the same way and get the people out that you feel aren't properly handling the funding they receive. Cutting spending doesn't sound like it will solve an administrative issue on the school board.

    79. Re:Parents? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      The most literate army in the history of the U.S. was the one which fought the Civil War and none of them were taught in anything larger than a one room school house.

      Source please. Research in IQ suggests otherwise.

      As to why being exposed to the lessons over and over is a good thing, I take it you have never been in a situation where you had to be retaught something you were taught once, years ago?

      Well, schools have always been too slow for me. The only subjects I ever struggled with are quantum computing and general relativity.

      My question is, why blindly repeat the subjects when you can send the failing ones back, and the passing ones to the next level? A big part of why US education sucks is "lowest common denominator" teaching, where the worst students sets the pace for the class. In other countries, the students are spilt into classes based on ability, and the best class moves at a much faster pace. They keep the high-performing students engaged and can cover more material. Meanwhile, the low-performing students in the slower classes don't feel stressed because things are taught at a pace they can internalize.

    80. Re: Parents? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nope. We know lots more about algebra and trig than Newton did. Also, Isaac probably learned his geometry from Euclid, which is a lousy teaching text. It's neither easy nor rigorous. Science has changed considerably since Newton.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    81. Re:Parents? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not really. Given how editions get shuffled, it helps a lot to have the students and instructor have the same edition. If you can't get enough of last year's edition for all the students, this year's edition looks awful tempting.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Informative

    after many years living in a borderilne slum (cheap rent from relatives who owned the place). The first thing he noticed is he didn't have to buy nearly as many school supplies as he did when his kids went to a poor district.

    In America we use property taxes to fund individual school districts. This means we've got nice, rich districts and lousy poor ones. This is by design. I've read one of the Scandinavian countries has laws about schools being funded equally to prevent just these kind of shenanigans. I'd love to see those kind of laws here in the States. As an added bonus it'd make forced busing pointless outside of specialty magnet schools.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      California does that: schools are mostly funded by the state instead of the city to even out inequality. There can still be some issues of inequality (like, the parents can come together to pay for a new football field or multi-purpose building, or parents can actually volunteer in schools; also, finding good teachers for bad schools can be hard). Overall it seems to work well.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      California has some historical inequalities. Districts that, decades ago, were rural low cost of living places, but are now high cost of living, don't get the same level of funding as parts of LA.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by mentil · · Score: 1

      But wait, that's like Communism! Spreading it all out means everyone starves to death! /s

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah that should be fixed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Well don't just spread it out, put it on their plates.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not just Scandinavia, that's pretty much the norm in Europe. To be honest, I never thought something like you describe was possible in the first place.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Equal outcome is communism. Equal opportunity is basically what the US was originally founded for.

      And it doesn't come closer to equal opportunity than teaching everyone on equal footing, then let them go out into the world and become what they can become based on the education they got.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      In my country it is EXACTLY the opposite, the lower the local social-economic rating of the area, the MORE money a school gets.
      The catch is they do not measure it just for the students, so you get areas where all the local rich parents kids go away to 'good'
      schools, but the local school gets no additional funding because they live in the area, and that creates all sorts of problems.

      It is not uncommon to see 'poor area' schools where every building is new, every sports team has fresh uniforms each year, and
      there are monthy (fully funded) school 'educational' trips. I know of a primary school not too far away in a 'rich' area that has
      floors slumping from rot, asbestos in the walls, and asks the local tradespeople for paint 'donations' to stop the buildings getting
      too much worse..

    9. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Too bad that it seems like the level of the opportunity, no matter how equal, is getting lower and lower in some cases every year... I mean everybody starting out starving and naked is still equal opportunity, after all.

    10. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, equal outcome is the capitalsts' strawman of communism. Communism is purely the state owning the means of production. Indeed the homily even YOU will know "from each according to their means, to each according to their needs" does NOT say "to each equally". If you work in a mine you need more food than someone who works doing light admin work.

      Oddly enough, this is ALSO the hidden mantra of every corporation not owned by the worker. The workers CAN do all the work, the owner cannot, so the work done is all done by the workers, not the owner. From each, according to their needs. The owner needs all the cash to pay for the business expenses, including the salaries, so he *gets* all the money. And they give to the workers olny what he needs to give to keep them there. To each according to their needs.

    11. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      That sounds correct in theory, except that some of the worst school districts in the U.S. spend more per student than many much better districts. Those bad school districts are indeed in poor neighborhoods. The difference is that the parents, and taxpayers, in wealthy school districts hold the school district more accountable for how they spend that money. In wealthy school districts, the parents expect that there will be money available for the important things, and when those things are not there, they raise a ruckus. And enough of them understand finances well enough to recognize when the school budget is spending money on things they consider unimportant. In poor neighborhoods, the parents expect that their school will be underfunded (even when it isn't) and few if any of them have time to go through the school budget to see that the money is there, just being poorly spent. In those neighborhoods, when someone does take that time, they find themselves going up against politically entrenched interests who have more time and money to fight the necessary political battles.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I've never seen that old catchphrase used in a more cynical way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      Funding schools in the US varies greatly and is quite complex (lots of exceptions). Most of the funding comes from the local municipality, usually property taxes. The state government also contributes a significant portion of funding, and that is often weighted based on the needs of the district. I live in a fairly wealthy area, and my district receives far less State funds that other areas. Funding is also provided to the state by the Federal government, again often based on need, which is then passed on to individual districts. I think you will find that like your country, it is the same here, where poorer areas receive a larger share of public money. I have found that many poorer districts spend more per student than richer ones.

    14. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      I just moved from an excellent school district to a horrible one (no kids in school, so I'm OK with this), and my school taxes didn't go down much. The mega-consolidated urban district I'm in still takes thousands of dollars per household every year and manages to do little with it. I just looked it up - my old district is rated one of the top in the state and spends $17k per pupil, the new one ranks near the bottom and spends $18k per pupil.

      So, this seems to be a good data point against the theory that rich people simply pay for better education. Also, the better of the two has mandatory bussing and still manages to keep expenses lower than the worse one.

    15. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      In America we use property taxes to fund individual school districts. This means we've got nice, rich districts and lousy poor ones. This is by design. I've read one of the Scandinavian countries has laws about schools being funded equally to prevent just these kind of shenanigans. I'd love to see those kind of laws here in the States. As an added bonus it'd make forced busing pointless outside of specialty magnet schools.

      Michigan changed that years ago. Schools are funded by sales tax, and the state sends the schools per pupil money.

      Guess what: Detroit schools still suck. It wasn't that.

    16. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      And most of the other 49 states are worse.

    17. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      McAfee....is that you?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    18. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Why artificially constrain your definition of "opportunity" to the kids? What about the opportunity for wealthier parents to spend more money on their kids' education if they wish?

      The fundamental problem here is there is no "fair" solution. Either you make everyone's education equal by prohibiting people in wealthier school districts from spending more than poorer districts could ever afford, thus unfairly limiting their kids to an inferior education compared to what they could really afford to pay for. Or you allow education spending to scale based on a district's resident's ability to pay, resulting in unfairly inferior education in poorer school districts.

      No matter which solution to this issue you pick, it is unfair in some way - you're artificially limiting someone's opportunity. Any self-proclaimed "fairest" solution isn't actually fairer, the reasoning behind it just downplays the unfairness it creates that the other solution(s) address. We want the world to be nice and orderly, with each problem having a single "best" solution. But it turns out that for many problems, no such best solution exists.

      Sometimes, equality (i.e. perfect fairness) is mathematically unobtainable. If a large man and a small child are stuck on a life raft and have to try to stretch their rations, which is fairer? Dividing the rations equally? Or dividing the rations according to body mass?

    19. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      I've read one of the Scandinavian countries has laws about schools being funded equally to prevent just these kind of shenanigans. I'd love to see those kind of laws here in the States.

      That sounds like a terrible system. You're suggesting that everyone get the lowest common denominator of schooling and that richer communities are forbidden from spending more of their own money on better schools? Property and labor are much cheaper in poor communities, you're putting richer communities at an immediate disadvantage.

      Such a system would probably have the effect of pushing even more kids into private schools. No parent of means is going to accept a sub-standard government school.

    20. Re:Buddy of mine finally moved to a nice place by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Why artificially constrain your definition of "opportunity" to the kids? What about the opportunity for wealthier parents to spend more money on their kids' education if they wish?

      Charter schools and private schools exist, for one. Problem solved?

  3. Tne worst school district in the area by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    has a projected budget that averages out to about $37,400 per student.

    I know there are considerations like property upkeep, and administration, but holy moly, why not just bus them to a nearby community college at that rate?

    1. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by quantaman · · Score: 1

      has a projected budget that averages out to about $37,400 per student.

      I know there are considerations like property upkeep, and administration, but holy moly, why not just bus them to a nearby community college at that rate?

      I'm not sure where you live, but your numbers seem to be wildly off.

      The average is close to $11k, with the highest state at $21k.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >I didn't finish my minor in math, but 957 Million and 27K students

      Where did you get those numbers?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some school districts in CA are pushing $40K in expenses per student, with the high being New Jerusalem Elementary School District coming in at $119,000 per student. Even it it was an average of $13K (which is about the average for California), the average class size is around 22, meaning close to $300K per classroom. A bit of math will show that teacher salary is around 20% of all student spending. That's the issue - so much money is going to things beyond education.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re: "Someone has got be getting rich from this"
      Over the decades of calculators. New books with math for new calculators.
      Desktop computers. The internet. Laptops. Newer mobile computing. GUI robot kits. GUI robot kits with software and new computer code.
      Grades stay the same.
      Students all over of the USA cant pass tests even after 30 years of new math and later computer spending.
      Great for the selling of calculators, new math books just for the new calculators, computers, networks, GUI robot code kits over the years.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by bws111 · · Score: 2

      My local district, with an enrollment of 6000 students, just published their $175M budget ($29K/student). The top spending categories are:

      $52.1 million for employee benefits
      $43.1 million for regular school teaching costs
      $30.4 million for programs for students with disabilities
      $11.9 million for general support.
      $9.2 million for debt service
      $8 million for transportation, up 4.5 percent.

      The two main things that throw off your 20% calculation is the ridiculously high 'employee benefit' spending, and the disabilities programs. The disabilities programs do not have a class size of 22, but may have a class size of one student, one teacher, and one or two aides.

    6. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Slight red flag there-- at least in most businesses, direct salary is about 1/3 of total labor costs along with your general overhead. Add in a few things unique to schools (things like gyms, libraries, lower infrastructure utilization per year), and it isn't that far off. 25% Might be achievable, but administrator pay would need to go down significantly. Not sure how much a high school [assistant] principal or superintendent *should* make, but I know I wouldn't want the job for twice a teacher's pay.

    7. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Some school districts in CA are pushing $40K in expenses per student, with the high being New Jerusalem Elementary School District coming in at $119,000 per student. Even it it was an average of $13K (which is about the average for California), the average class size is around 22, meaning close to $300K per classroom. A bit of math will show that teacher salary is around 20% of all student spending. That's the issue - so much money is going to things beyond education.

      I don't know about all of them but it looks like the top one is exploiting rules regarding Charter schools.

      I'd need to see some proper media reports to understand what's going on in general since those schools over $50k per student seem kind of ridiculous.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    8. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by strikethree · · Score: 1

      That's the issue - so much money is going to things beyond education.

      Yeah. Administration.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    9. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Do employees include those beyond teachers? I explicitly stated "teacher salary", not including those of administrators, counselors, etc. I'd be surprised if more than 20% of that budget actually went to the teachers.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      So we need to increase funding because - we need more administrators?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    11. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by bws111 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the benefits include 'those beyond teachers'. But certainly the bulk of that is teachers. In the elementary school where my daughter teaches, there are 25 teachers, one principal, a secretary, a janitor, a nurse, and some TAs. The principal makes more money than the teachers of course, but everyone else makes far less.

    12. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The two main things that throw off your 20% calculation is the ridiculously high 'employee benefit' spending

      "Employee benefits" is far more than teacher salary. For example, it's the salaries of every administrator, as well as the health insurance and pension benefits of everyone.

      One of the main ways spending has gone up is there are a lot more "administrators" per teacher than there used to be.

    13. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Not sure where your daughter goes to school, but in California (where my numbers were from), the average salary for a teacher is around $67K. With a classroom-spend of $300K, that's around 22% to the teacher. That's a LOT of overhead there, you would think with that kind of spend per room they could give more to teachers - or if not, cut back on the spend per room.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Employee benefits is NOT teacher salary (or anyone else's) salary. It is PURELY health insurance and pension. Salaries are 'regular school teaching' and 'disability programs' and 'general support'.

      Administrative costs are one of those things that always sound plausible, but on closer inspection don't really amount to much. Total administrator costs in this district are around $2M, or just over 1% of the budget.

    15. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Is that your definition or theirs?

      Because a salary is a benefit. And often salaries and other benefits are lumped into one line item in the budget.

    16. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by bws111 · · Score: 1

      If the teachers salary is around $67K, the teacher is probably costing the district north of $100K once benefits (health care, pension, etc) are added in.

      The next problem is you are using 'class size' to figure out the cost, but that is not the correct measurement. The correct measurement is teachers per student in the district. Why does that matter? Because once you get above the elementary level the teachers spent an awful lot of time not in a classroom. For instance, in the district I am talking about the high school has approx 2400 students, and there are 250 teachers. That is not the 22-1 ratio that you are using. Why are there so many teachers? Because, by contract, out of a 9 period day a teacher can have assigned classes for no more than THREE periods. There is an additional one period (max) that they can be assigned as a sub in another room. One period of the day (ninth) is for students who need help, have questions, etc. One period is for lunch. And three periods are for making lesson plans, correcting papers, setting up labs, etc. And even at the elementary level, a teacher doesn't spend all day teaching. There are always one or two 'special' periods a day (library, reading, music, art, gym, etc).

      Then we get to special education. Kids who, years ago, would have been in special ed are now 'integrated' in regular classrooms. That leaves only the most severe handicaps in special ed, and those classrooms are certainly not at a 22-1 ratio no matter how you look at it. A ratio of 1-1-1 is not uncommon. That means 1 student, 1 teacher, and 1 aide. That really adds to the teacher count quickly.

      So now, when we consider your $300K classroom spend, we find it is split among at least two teachers (on average) who are costing the district (on average) around $100K each. So 66% of the money, not 20% goes to the teachers.

    17. Re:Tne worst school district in the area by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It is their definition. A quote from the school board:

      Health insurance eats up about 21 percent of the budget of this district, More than one out of every five dollars we spend is spent on health insurance either for active employees or retirees

  4. it's the party platform by dltaylor · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A: the rich should be able to run the country to suit themselves

    B: there aren't enough people who would buy that premise, so throw in theocracy to bring in the votes of those thugs

    The rich hate public education; they send their children to private schools, and don't see why every else can't, too. Theocrats hate any education beyond rote reading, writing, and arithmetic, because their children might ask awkward questions if they were taught to think.

    1. Re:it's the party platform by mentil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Theocrats hate any education beyond rote reading

      Actually, the Church hated Martin Luther because he advocated plebeians reading the Bible for themselves, rather than only the priests who knew Latin being able to read it for them, and telling them what it 'REALLY' means. So they don't always like literacy either. That said, Muslims are expected to be able to read the Koran for themselves (and even memorize it).

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:it's the party platform by meglon · · Score: 2

      Maybe the middle class should get tired of being lied to and paying for tax breaks for the wealthiest members of society. Then, possibly, we'd get things working a bit better.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:it's the party platform by johannesg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That said, Muslims are expected to be able to read the Koran for themselves (and even memorize it).

      In the islamic world, it's not considered necessary to actually speak arabic in order to memorize the koran - you can memorize it just fine without understanding a word of what it says. And the goal is really memorisation, and not reading, in order to make a difference between in-group and out-group people, not to actually gain any kind of knowledge or wisdom.

    4. Re:it's the party platform by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Yet another good post down-modded in the middle of the night. -1 Troll and disagree are not the same thing. The middle class maybe isn't getting enough education to see through the lies! In any event, this is a valid like of reasoning written in a non-inflamatory tone. There may have to be some adjustment to how mod points are distributed!

    5. Re:it's the party platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bull. The guy who put the Bible into the hands of the masses was Guthenberg, not Luther. Moreover, there are numerous translations of the Bible into scores European languages that predate Luther, some authored by people who were later canonized. The only reason that they weren't widespread is because (before printing press) *books* weren't widespread (costing as much as several villages), not because of some opposition from the Church.

      Please learn your history from actual history books, not from Dan Brown.

    6. Re:it's the party platform by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Muslim here. I don't know why Joannesg got voted Troll because what he said is 100% accurate. If you go to any non-Arabic speaking country and talk to the Muslims there, very few of them will be able to speak Arabic or translate it for you.

      I have nephews and nieces in the UK who have all read the Quran. A couple of them have memorized it, but if you ask them to translate a random verse into English, they won't be able to because they don't really understand what they're reading. It's a big thing in my family when someone has memorized the Quran - parties are thrown, gifts are shared etc. but no-one really cares about if the person actually understood any of it. It's just memorization.

      I read the Quran when I was younger and even memorized half of it but I couldn't tell you what any of it meant until I got my hands on a version that hand Arabic and English translations side by side. That was considered 'cheating' back in the day so my parents and the local Imam were really disappointed I had to resort to finding an English translation version.

      This is one of the great dangers of preachers/Imams etc. They ask a child to read some text and then tell the child what the text is saying rather than let the child figure it out themselves. What doesn't help is that most religious texts are kinda ambiguous - if you're a pacifist you can read one sentence a certain way and think, "OK, that sounds entirely reasonable. I should look to help others" whereas a maniac would read the exact same words and come to the conclusion, "God is telling me to kill infidels".

      Incidentally, it was after reading the English translations that I moved away from religion.

    7. Re:it's the party platform by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 1

      It certainly does help being part of the in-group - no doubt about that. But, sometimes being part of an in-group isn't good for you. I'm struggling to think of a good analogy so please bear with me.

      Imagine you have a bunch of friends who are all PhD's. You're the only one that isn't. Having a PhD in that circle is considered a great thing because it gives you status and knowledge. You feel a bit left out but don't have the time, money, or inclination to go to University and get your own PhD. Your friends don't treat you any worse but there's definitely a missing dynamic that rears it's ugly head every now and then because you can't talk-the-talk.

      To fix this, you find an online University or something similar and sign up for a course that will give you a PhD in flower arranging. Bear with me... . You pass your course and are given a "PhD". Now you feel you're the same as your buddies even though they have PhD's in Engineering, Physics, Math etc.

      Memorizing the Quran is the same kind of thing. If culturally the expectation is you must know it off by heart then you'll do what it takes, regardless if it has any actual merit or if you'll use any of that knowledge in your daily or professional life. Just because you can recite verses (equivalent of having a dodgy PhD) without really understanding any of it just means you did something to get a stamp or certificate - even though that stamp/certificate is essentially worthless.

      Hope that helps clarify.

    8. Re:it's the party platform by Subm · · Score: 1

      Scientists are even worse.

      Not only do they not have students read original works like Principia or Origin of Species, they make them redo experiments from scratch!

    9. Re:it's the party platform by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Ummm, Gutenberg would not have helped most people read the Bible if someone had not translated it into the vernacular. While it is true that Gutenberg allowed for vernacular Bibles to become wildly available, the Roman Catholic Church had a history of opposing such translations long before the advent of Gutenberg's printing press. This was a result of the fact that those who promoted translation into the vernacular did so because they believed that some of the Roman Catholic Church's teaching were contradicted by the Bible.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:it's the party platform by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, that would make sense if it were not for the fact that after every one of those "tax breaks for the wealthiest members of society" get passed, the wealthiest members of society did not end up paying a greater share of federal revenue.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:it's the party platform by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      well yeah, reading leads to IDEAS and shit. cant have the cows thinking.

    12. Re:it's the party platform by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Well, that would make sense if it were not for the fact that after every one of those "tax breaks for the wealthiest members of society" get passed, the wealthiest members of society did not end up paying a greater share of federal revenue.

      But, those are just, like, the facts, man.

      It doesn't *feel* right to the tribal, identity-politics-driven, "yeah, we'll get those guys!" instincts that push many to behave like the ends justify the means. It enables one to dehumanize those who disagree and make them "the other". It's a short trip from there to camps and mass State-sanctioned murder.

      Both the mega-corps and the government want us divided into hostile demographic groups. It makes it easier to market to those groups in a targeted manner and to control the population while enriching themselves at the population's expense and grabbing ever-more power for themselves.

      All governments are horrible because they're all composed of people who wanted to be in government. I don't know why anyone would trust them to do anything that could reasonably be accomplished some other way.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:it's the party platform by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      The irony being that the entire reason you're not supposed to translate the Quran is to have as few interpreters between God's original word and you as possible. Ideally, the only interpreter should be Mohammed, and that's seen as ok because the entire underpinning of the religion is that he was a holy prophet. Islam was well aware of the problems Christianity had as a result of translating texts from their original language and hoped to avoid it. Seeing people read the Quran as rote recital and understanding none of it must have some people who died 1400 years ago spinning in their graves.

    14. Re:it's the party platform by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Right. I don't know whether Muslims do this or not, though. The OP asserted that they do and was modded unreasonably as a Troll. But apparently whoever down-modded the OP down-modded me for pointing it out.

    15. Re:it's the party platform by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Just an old tactic to reduce the amount of time you have to yourself. Every cult uses this tactic in one way or other. Keep em busy...no time to think or be a part of something else.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  5. Budgeting Hell by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My take on it is that the budgeting at public schools is as big of a mess as budgeting at NASA. Way too much is wasted on legacy make-work boondoggle cronyist handouts. In the last slashdot discussion of this, someone linked to this image which pretty succinctly summarizes the problem. This is magnified by the problem of school administrators getting a large salary increase in the last year or two of work before retirement, because their pension is based on their salary at the point of retirement; and thus they get an inflated pension.

    I was thinking that regulations could mandate a maximum portion of a school's staff that is non-teaching administrative staff, but then those staff members would teach 1 hour a year to be classified as 'teaching staff' thus gaming the system, so there'd need to be a stricter definition of 'teaching staff' as well. Aside from a nurse, janitors, principal, career counselor, and social worker, how many other administrators do you need?

    A book I read years ago on how to fix America's schools advocated using zero-based budgeting and cutting non-academic 'side-shows' like sports teams, then starting school a couple hours later, once children are actually awake enough to learn. A related book ('The End of Homework') also advocated eliminating homework as a way to save time that'd be better spent on one-to-one assistance.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Budgeting Hell by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That graph starts in 1970... just before all the special needs rules went into effect. I think a huge percentage of school funding is spent on that... mostly on staff.

      I don't see any point to zero-based budgeting schools. You think math is going to go out of vogue?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re: Budgeting Hell by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That graph starts in 1970... just before all the special needs rules went into effect. I think a huge percentage of school funding is spent on that... mostly on staff.

      That's an interesting point ... except that the trend in university budgets looks very similar as well. How many special needs universities are there?

    3. Re: Budgeting Hell by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      except that the trend in university budgets looks very similar as well. How many special needs universities are there?

      At universities, it's probably due to Title IX's expansion of athletics for women. After all, since the dollars spent have to be the same, and football/men's basketball are expensive, that's a lot of cash. Plus, football/basketball coaches now make millions a year in universities. College sports are a big business.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re: Budgeting Hell by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      As a non-American, I find the whole concept of universities organizing sports teams bizarre. I went to university to get an education in my field, not to get involved in basketball or some other sport I don't care about. Other students, who were interested in those activities, could simply use their own money and get membership of an appropriate club and play in their free time.

    5. Re:Budgeting Hell by mentil · · Score: 2

      The basic argument for zero-based budgeting is that if you start with a blank sheet of paper and add the things you really need in a school, you'll end up with a short list with a relatively small bottom line. However, if you use incremental budgeting, starting with a multi-page sheet of every current itemized cost, you end up with a much larger bottom line, even if you tweak each item's budget a little. The implication is that many items on the budget aren't crucial to education but are part of the budget because they've always been there.

      It's comparable to the difference between adjusting every employee's salary, and firing everyone and hiring new people for only the positions you really need.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    6. Re: Budgeting Hell by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The very idea of sports playing any role at a university (that's not focused on sports related studies, that is) is bizarre to be honest. The closest thing my university has to sports is the robots and AI departments' joint effort to get a robots soccer team going.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: Budgeting Hell by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I went to university to get an education in my field, not to get involved in basketball or some other sport I don't care about.

      Luckily, you aren't actually required to pay any attention whatsoever to the university sports, even if you go there.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re: Budgeting Hell by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Luckily, you aren't actually required to pay any attention whatsoever to the university sports, even if you go there

      Unluckily, you are actually required to pay.

    9. Re:Budgeting Hell by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Aside from a nurse, janitors, principal, career counselor, and social worker, how many other administrators do you need?

      Woah there! How do you expect to run a school without 12 vice assistant principals?

    10. Re: Budgeting Hell by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      While there are universities in America where you just take classes (and usually lack sports programs), the majority are designed around being residential facilities. As such, they have dining halls, gyms and a massive number of extra curricular. While not as useful careerwise, they often help round a person out. And competition between universities is important in sports, debate or anywhere where putting together a team is relevant.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Budgeting Hell by e3m4n · · Score: 1

      some of those ideas have merit, but ending homework is a terrible, terrible, idea. My daughter is now in high school and has only recently had any kind of homework and accountability in place. Still, a vast majority of her classes are not assigning homework. A school has a few roles to fill besides just 'teaching' a student how to do something. There is a socialization aspect it needs to fill as well. The sort of socialized skills needed to conduct yourself in a workplace need to be mastered before graduation from public schools. For examples:

      Punctuality - arriving to school and/or each period before the bell rings instills the concept of punctuality which is critical to job retention in many, many career choices. Especially those in healthcare. Those professions have the strictest attendance policies and do not even lend themselves to sick time amidst one of the highest risk factors on contracting illness.

      Homework - giving assignments and expecting them to be turned in completed instills the work ethic associated with jobs that are project oriented instead of shift and/or task oriented. Missing deadlines for assignments or projects can reflect bad on the company you work for and directly impact ones effectiveness at job retention. Few job exist without homework and the higher you climb within an industry the more you are likely to acquire. Does the waitress working at a restaurant have homework? No, but as you go higher up the food-chain in the service industry, those sales, marketing, and management positions demand more than a 9-5 investment and become more project-based. This is also a key difference between an hourly-based employee versus a salary-based one. If it was cheaper to pay someone hourly, there would not be salary positions. Salary positions exist because often people find themselves working more than 40hrs per week in order to meet the job requirements and project deadlines. If you can meet all your goals and deadlines in 30hrs then enjoy the rest of the week off; if not, I guess its going to be a long night. It's literally how the expression "I guess you did your homework on this one" came about.

      Peer behaviors - teaching people how to treat each other, whether via 'the golden rule' or any other methodology, goes to the heart of employability as nobody wants to deal with a hostile work environment. Knowing how to behave around peers you may, or may not, even remotely like is critical to job retention. We learn these skills in school. The higher the grade level, the more parallel to the sort of scenarios you will have to endure at work. At some point in your life you are going to have a boss that you think is the biggest idiot on the planet, and wonder how in the hell they got into a position where they not only are paid more than you, but also give out instructions, knowing less than a remedial level of knowledge on the subject.

      Sports teams - I am about 50% with you on this one. I think the degree to which they have taken sports is bad, but in general the concept of team based goals and making sacrifices for a team are huge in terms of working at a company. We've heard it a million times, 'there is no I in team'; and while its funny to say 'but there is a ME', the concept still stands. On some level employers want to believe that their employees are loyal and will put the companies needs above their own. Being a member of a team for competition helps bring this idea into focus. For the employee it helps them decide if their personal needs are more important than the employer's, or vice versus. Sometimes the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many, esp if it involves your children, esp if its health related. Team participation teaches people this balance.

    12. Re:Budgeting Hell by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Way too much is wasted on legacy make-work boondoggle cronyism handouts.

      That's human nature, not just schools. Humans are wasteful, inefficient, tribal, and ego-driven apes who happen to be able to talk.

      You can create monitors and auditors to try to "weed out waste", but auditing and the related effects are not cheap either.

      Part of the problem is that teaching is getting more complex, which mirrors society. A teacher in 1970 didn't have to care about learning and teaching how to use educational computers, for example. There's also more rules to ensure things like minimum standards are met, and more rules creates more administrative overhead. Few cared about minimum standards in 1970.

      You may think the private sector is more efficient, which in some ways is true, but they also waste a lot on sales and marketing shenanigans. The more competitive the industry, the more goes into the sales side instead of actually making a better mousetrap.

      Heavy competition often also breeds underhanded shenanigans, like Wells Fargo's fake orders, or New England Patriots' microphone-gate and deflate-gate.

    13. Re:Budgeting Hell by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Being a typical nerd in school (straight A student except for PE), I thought the sports requirement in school was superfluous too. But after having worked for a couple decades, I now realize that those sports activities taught teamwork. That's a skill which is just as if not more important than academic achievement (a good team of average people can outproduce a single intellectual genius in many tasks).

      Also, at the college level, intercollegiate sports are a huge driver for alumni donations. So a few hundred thousand dollars "wasted" on a sports scholarship for a star athlete can actually result in millions of dollars in alumni donations which can be used to fund scholarships for purely academic students.

    14. Re:Budgeting Hell by mentil · · Score: 1

      It's in amount of staff, not dollars.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    15. Re:Budgeting Hell by mentil · · Score: 1

      Good points regarding socializing and team dynamics. However, there are better ways for schools to achieve that than homework, which is usually intended to be (and actually) done in isolation. For example, in-class group projects, where your group gets together each class session to continue work on a project; if the group doesn't get the task done on time is comparable to if your team at your job doesn't get a project done on time.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    16. Re:Budgeting Hell by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If you can meet all your goals and deadlines in 30hrs then enjoy the rest of the week off

      Right... As opposed to simply assigning you more work to fill the remaining 10 hours.

  6. Funding vs outcomes by tgibson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Teachers are having to teach students with materials that are defective, outdated and inefficient because of a lack of funding going to state education budgets -- particularly in Republican states.

    Are the comparatively flush budgets in Democratic states producing better outcomes for their students?

    1. Re:Funding vs outcomes by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The overwhelming factor in overall educational results does not seem to be the school budget. It is the presence of two parents in the home. And that is more common in the Democratic states. A New York Times article, with citations, describes some of this. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

    2. Re:Funding vs outcomes by Ayano · · Score: 1

      You can actually take a look at the graduation rates by states and in rank... You won't like what you see if you're looking for partisan validation.

      --
      I don't read AC
    3. Re:Funding vs outcomes by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      California has about average graduate rates, yet its school system ranks near the bottom in the country. Graduation rates are a poor measure of performance.

    4. Re: Funding vs outcomes by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      Except rural area tend to vote Republican and also tend to home to single parents.

      Even to the degree that that is true, what does it matter? Even in counties where half the kids are raised by single mothers, single mothers are still only a small fraction of voters and they can't turn an otherwise Republican district Democratic.

      You need 2 or more incomes per household yo live in the cities

      No, you simply need subsidized housing and lots of government benefits.

      Learn the difference. Wait that required education, and conservatives are againist socialized living.

      Why don't you try to express whatever you're trying to say in a couple of coherent English sentences?

    5. Re: Funding vs outcomes by dalutong · · Score: 1
      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    6. Re:Funding vs outcomes by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      > That's absolutely false. Single mothers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, while married women and men favor Republicans

      From the article, the conservative, Republican states generate far more single mothers, due to teen pregnancy and divorce. Apparently the overwhelming majority to which you refer isn't enough to override the statistics and behavior that create so many single parents in the first place. Also, these notably poorer single parents apparently vote less than married women. It seems true that they have an understandable self-interest in Democratic campaign issues like abortion rights, minimum wage, and universal health care. But apparently the resulting Democrat voting does not overwhelm the more conservative, Republican environment that helped generate them.

    7. Re:Funding vs outcomes by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      I've afraid this has wondered away from the point I was trying to make: If I may suggest, rather than universally and self-righteously criticizing them for the lack of charity, do check out the _rate_ of charity among Christians: Note that according to statistics that it is higher than almost any other group in the world. I'd encourage you to grant them some credit for that. And be aware that religious leadership can teach contradictory values in every faith.

    8. Re:Funding vs outcomes by meglon · · Score: 1

      No.

      That is a great example, though, of how stats are used to obfuscate and lie. Christians only have a higher rate of giving if you include money given to the church.... that isn't charity, that is them attempting to buy their way into heaven. Most churches, in fact, are dismal when it comes to using that money for causes other than paying for their own upkeep.

      As for contradictory values... yeh, evangelical values are definitely contradictory from pretty much everything Jesus taught. If they hate his teachings so much, they shouldn't be lying to everyone telling them they're Christians... they're not.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    9. Re:Funding vs outcomes by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      Christian, checking in...

      Well, just because Jesus taught that divorce/adultery was a sin (while saying nothing about abortion or gay marriage), that doesn't mean the bible belt fake christians in the US have to live by his teachings when they're so busy lying about his teachings.

      Let's start with the divorce/adultery issue. You're absolutely right, that there isn't nearly as much disparity in divorce rates among Christians as their should be. Adultery would be a bit more complicated to pin down in this context, because Jesus' teachings indicate that lustful thoughts are akin to adultery. If Christians take that teaching into account when discussing their experiences with adultery, then that's going to skew the numbers a bit if the polls don't account for it. That said, we'll continue to agree that the numbers should show a much clearer story than they do.

      On to the abortion topic: the abortion argument stems from the belief that a fetus is a person. If a fetus is a person, then abortion is the intentional killing of a person. Now, you might disagree with that view, but hopefully that core tenet makes at least some sense.

      With respect to gay marriage, you're right, Jesus never spoke of homosexuality directly. However, you won't find a passage in the Bible that speaks about it positively. We'll agree in that this is one of those issues blown out of proportion as a whole since the Bible teaches that those who do not ascribe to its teachings should be able to live however they want. At the same time, there's a certain amount of concern about government being used to enforce moral acceptance.

      That article you linked is spot on. Jesus taught to feed the hungry, cloth and shelter the poor, and heal the sick.

      We're still in agreement here...sort of. The tricky part of this statement is that it implies that Christians should be in favor of government programs handling this task, while Jesus was actually putting the responsibility upon His followers directly. One can simultaneously be opposed to the government being in charge of these programs given known issues with wasteful spending and poor policies that end up ultimately being bad for both recipients and taxpayers, while also adhering to the individual mandate to help those who need it.

      In a reply to another responder, you said:

      Christians only have a higher rate of giving if you include money given to the church.... that isn't charity, that is them attempting to buy their way into heaven. Most churches, in fact, are dismal when it comes to using that money for causes other than paying for their own upkeep.

      This is messy territory because it assumes that churches are bad charities, but non-churches are good ones. On the topic of churches, is so easy to point to examples of churches on both ends of the spectrum. I agree that there are no shortage of churches where the preachers promise that the offering plate will provide a financial return-on-investment, basically capitalizing on the greed of the giver. Similarly, I know there are no shortage of churches where a lot of the money goes into having a beautiful building...and that being the biggest share of right half of the balance sheet. I also know churches that are the largest non-governmental entity in their respective counties which handle giving food to thousands of hungry residents every week, providing showers and children's programs and helping them find jobs with no requirement on the part of the recipient. I know churches that have built multiple wells in Africa and help fund a home for mentally ill people in India, others who run drug rehabilitation centers, and still others who work primarily with single mothers who need diapers and formula and an emotional support system. All of these examples assume only "traceable giving", with no accounting for interpersonal giving, Kickstarter giving, direct food donations, and many more types of generosity which don't show up in a balanc

    10. Re:Funding vs outcomes by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Conservative "christians" have deluded themselves into believing they're actual Christians, even though Jesus spoke out against greed, materialism and the worship of money.

      I agree without contest here - greed and materialism (and gluttony, while we're at it) are sins that are becoming troublingly common within the church.

      I'll add that these specific people also aren't good at being fiscally conservative either (which is not the same thing as hoarding all your own money for yourself). It's an odd label to pick for yourself and then totally stray away from.

    11. Re:Funding vs outcomes by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It seems true that they have an understandable self-interest in Democratic campaign issues like abortion rights, minimum wage, and universal health care. But apparently the resulting Democrat voting does not overwhelm the more conservative, Republican environment

      Correct. For starters, are twice as many voters in a married couple household compared to a single mother household. On top of that, less than half of US households have children, and even in high single motherhood rural counties, less than half of households with children are single mothers. And single motherhood among blacks and Hispanics has little influence since those women already vote Democratic regardless. So while single mothers overwhelmingly vote Democratic, they remain a minor factor in rural Republican districts.

      that helped generate them.

      Single motherhood is primarily a consequence of Democratic and progressive policies at the state and federal level. That's what rural Republican voters are rebelling again.

    12. Re:Funding vs outcomes by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Single motherhood is primarily a consequence of Democratic and progressive policies at the state and federal level.

      Single motherhood is due to the lack of family planning. Who was it that pushed for abstinence only sex education? Who's fought against abortion? And now who's giving out contraceptives? Maybe you should stop shooting yourself in the foot and blaming it on the other guy.

    13. Re:Funding vs outcomes by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Single motherhood is due to the lack of family planning. Who was it that pushed for abstinence only sex education?

      The idea that most single mothers get pregnant because they lack sex education is false. Half of US abortions are repeat abortions. And single motherhood is extremely widespread in progressive states with sex education; there is little evidence that sex education reduces single motherhood. But there is certainly evidence that government support of single motherhood increases the problem, and Democrats and progressives have been the primary drivers behind that.

      Single motherhood isn't a consequence of lack of family planning, it is a consequence of family planning, in particular, the plan to become a single mother. Women become single mothers because they choose to become single mothers. And they choose to become single mothers because it's an economically viable choice that is accepted by society.

      Who's fought against abortion? And now who's giving out contraceptives?

      I certainly fight against both government financed abortions and against giving out contraceptives. I have no moral problem with you having an abortion or you using contraceptives, but I see no reason why I should pay for your bad decisions.

      Maybe you should stop shooting yourself in the foot and blaming it on the other guy.

      You can fuck whoever you want, get pregnant in whatever way you want, get whatever STDs you like, scrape fetuses out of your womb in whatever way you want. it's a free country, and if it makes you happy, good for you! But you have to accept the consequences of your choices. That is, when you come to me and say "give me your money to protect me from the consequences of my actions", I am most certainly going to 'blame" you and tell you that I am not responsible for your sorry state and that I see no reason why I should pay to fix your problems. And what's particularly offensive to me as an immigrant is that the people who are making those demands were considerably wealthier and more privileged than I was from birth and they pissed it all away.

      The essence of liberalism and foundation of modern societies is that we treat people as competent adults with free will. That means that you get to make your own choices, and you have to live with the consequences of those choices. If you make bad choices, people may still grant you charity, but that is a voluntary private choice on their part, not an obligation. That's how Western societies became free, wealthy, and powerful.

      I still think that's the best way of running a society. If you want government to protect you from the consequences of your bad choices, on the other hand, you implicitly want totalitarian government. There is no third option.

  7. Re:Hate speech by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

    The GP obviously attended one of the poorer schools in the US.

  8. Education is dangerous by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A well-run democracy requires educated citizens. The state of school systems in poor neighborhoods is by design. Those in charge want only the "right" kind of voters to be educated.

    1. Re:Education is dangerous by freudigst · · Score: 1

      You're right, except when you use the word democracy, assuming you're referring to the United States in this century.

    2. Re:Education is dangerous by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How is this trolling? If anything, it's spot on target. Pol Pot already knew that people are easier to rule if they are dumb as a doorknob. Since it's not politically correct to just kill everyone who is smart enough to actually know you're bullshitting them, the next best thing is to at least ensure the next generation won't be smart enough to debunk your lies.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Education is dangerous by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Pol Pot already knew that people are easier to rule if they are dumb as a doorknob

      On the other hand, ruling over a bunch of doorknobs is not a recipe for long term prosperity.

    4. Re:Education is dangerous by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you have a few key engineers who know where to put those doorknobs, it works pretty well as we see today.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Education is dangerous by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      A dictator cares about their own prosperity, not their country's.

  9. Teachers are themselves to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First: Their big unions are so powerful that they are some of the biggest campaign contributors in many states, which results in the people the union bosses want running the state education bureaucracies. The individual teachers may object to this idea and claim they do not like the people in charge, but those denials are false. By supporting their union bosses who in turn pick and support the education burueacrats they are in fact selecting the policies.

    Second: In places like California, the teachers support all the other state workers (who respond by supporting the teachers) and ALL these state workers collectively use their political might to get incredibly generous pensions. Teachers love to complin about paltry pay, but they also love to have the public not notice that the pay is for only about 9 months per year of work and does not include pension and heath benefits that dwarf the retirement benefits of most of the parents of the kids in the schools. Lots of state workers in California retire and collect as much (or more) per year in retirement than while they worked. Thus, one should actually say that the teachers are being compensated at more than twice the rate they publicly claim to be paid.

    Third: In most of the country the teachers are members of one of two national unions who are aligned with the Democart party. The Democrat party sees a future of absolute power guaranteed by the demographic shifts they are driving with support for massive immigration. The teachers thus are, through their unions, supporting the massive immigration that has overrun many school districts with lots of undereducated kids with a myriad of special needs including many foreign languages and customs.

    The primary reasons so many states are failing to pay for the necessary basic school supplies is that they are instead funding state worker pensions as demanded by the unions and they are obeying the courts in funding all the multilingual stuff required by all the immigrant kids they themselves (via their union bosses and the DNC) imported into the country. There are more immigrant kids in the United States today than ever before in American history - MILLIONS came in during the 8 years of Obama, which followed the not-quite-as-high 8 years of GW Bush high immigration policies.

    America today is spending more money per pupil on education than it ever has in American history. The results do not justify the costs.

    1. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      that the pay is for only about 9 months per year of work

      If you think all teachers are just idle during the school holidays you're either surrounded by shit teachers or know nothing about teaching, I wonder which it is.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend is highly ranked in her district and she doesn't sit idle for 3 months/year, we usually do foreign travel.

    3. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend is highly ranked in her district and she doesn't sit idle for 3 months/year, we usually do foreign travel.

      If she's highly ranked I doubt she does much teaching anymore.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      That's true. She couldn't take the crap anymore and quit after 20 years.

    5. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    6. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by whoda · · Score: 1

      Where did he say they sit idle? He said they get paid for 9 months of work.

      I've asked a teacher about this and they told me that yes, they get a 9 month salaray.
      At their place of employmnen, they have the option to turn it into 26 smaller paychecks, or they can receive 18 larger paychecks. I'm sure this isn't the case everywhere however.

    7. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Where did he say they sit idle? He said they get paid for 9 months of work.

      I've asked a teacher about this and they told me that yes, they get a 9 month salaray. At their place of employmnen, they have the option to turn it into 26 smaller paychecks, or they can receive 18 larger paychecks. I'm sure this isn't the case everywhere however.

      Seems to be different where you are but ask this teacher friend of yours if they are expected to mark/plan/review/assess etc in the "holidays" because where I am the teachers are expected to teach all day and very little/no time is given for the rest of the job but its expected to be done anyway, which is what the holidays are for. Kids may be off and support staff get pro rata contracts so they're off but the teachers are working, well the good ones are anyway the shit ones just coast but that goes for any industry

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    8. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      First: Their big unions are so powerful that they are some of the biggest campaign contributors in many states

      You mistakenly believe this because "rich people" are not lumped together as a single contributor. They vastly overwhelm spending by all unions combined.

      which results in the people the union bosses want running the state education bureaucracies

      Um....no. The unions are not interested in "school choice reformers" running the state education bureaucracy, since the for-profit schools they set up siphon even more money out of the system. Yet such people are put in charge in many states, and have been for a long time.

      Second: In places like California, the teachers support all the other state workers (who respond by supporting the teachers) and ALL these state workers collectively use their political might to get incredibly generous pensions

      That's because they collectively decided to forego more salary in favor of pensions. If you want to get rid of the pension, you're going to have to pay more salary.

      Teachers love to complin about paltry pay, but they also love to have the public not notice that the pay is for only about 9 months per year of work

      So you apparently don't know any teachers.

      and does not include pension and heath benefits that dwarf the retirement benefits of most of the parents of the kids in the schools.

      Wait....you mean unions work? They negotiate much better benefits than we can negotiate as individuals? Perhaps those parents should stop shitting on unions and join one.

      Lots of state workers in California retire and collect as much (or more) per year in retirement than while they worked

      Please define and provide a citation for "Lots". Also, please refer the "or more" people to the attorney general's office so they can be prosecuted.

      The primary reasons so many states are failing to pay for the necessary basic school supplies is that they are instead funding state worker pensions as demanded by the unions

      Uh...pensions have been cut over the last 40 years. They have not been increasing. If a state suddenly can't pay, it's not because the pensions went up. Might wanna look at all those tax cuts that got passed in those 40 years.

      they are obeying the courts in funding all the multilingual stuff required by all the immigrant kids they themselves (via their union bosses and the DNC) imported into the country.

      So the DNC is going to other countries and shipping people to the United States? Got a citation for that which does not include an Alex Jones wanna-be?

      There are more immigrant kids in the United States today than ever before in American history

      The population of the United States today is larger than ever before in American history.

      In other words, to make your claim about immigrants relevant, you'd have to compare it to the overall population of the United States.....but doing so would destroy your talking point.

      America today is spending more money per pupil on education than it ever has in American history. The results do not justify the costs.

      First, correct for inflation.

      Second, take a look at where the money's being spent. The biggest increases in spending are capital costs (ie. building new buildings), administrative costs (the district office is WAAAAY fuller than it was 50 years ago), and sports (gotta have that big Friday Night Lights stadium, with very expensive coaching staff).

      Teachers aren't the big problem. But there's a lot of money to be made convincing you they are.

    9. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      but they also love to have the public not notice that the pay is for only about 9 months per year of work

      Hi, husband of a teacher here. Not only does my wife *work* for 12 months of the year she also *works* in the evenings, after hours, answering student questions, marking assignments, exams, and preparing the next class. She only attends a classroom for 9 months of the year.

      But thanks for mentioning this. With this one line you have instantly shown the Slashdot readership that you simply don't have the slightest clue about teachers or teaching. That's assuming people bothered to read through the rest of the crap and make it down to your 2nd garbage paragraph.

      About the only thing right in your entire post is your last 2 sentences. But that has nothing at all to do with teachers, their pay, or their unions.

    10. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Where did he say they sit idle? He said they get paid for 9 months of work.

      It was implied in the entire rest of the the OP's uneducated post. Context matters for understanding of English sentences, or didn't you learn that at school?

    11. Re:Teachers are themselves to blame by G00F · · Score: 1

      I know many, many teachers. Most take all the summer off, some have a 2nd job, few do any kind of teaching activity including those further their education. I even know two, who produce constantly have the best growth in students, and the best grades in the state, do very little to no teacher type work during the summer. Those that do burn out in a few short years.

      Part of the reason for their low pay is that they don't work all 12 months. The other reason is the pension. I have to work many more years, saving 15% of my income(partially taxed) to even come close. And chances are I'll be forced to retire before 60, they on the other hand are protected to work, some even get two retirements.(same state, different district)

      Now, this is not to discredit what they do, or how hard they work.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
  10. Short sighted attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is likely that your quality of life would improve if you paid significantly MORE taxes. In addition to you paying more taxes the rich would pay more taxes. That additional tax would outweigh your contribution. And then you could get roads, bridges, working schools, police, etc.

    When everyone is supported by proper public funding, everything works properly. You would prosper despite your selfish inclination.

    This idea that everyone should pay nothing in taxes is why we can't have good things. If we pay too little tax, the system decays and we get nothing. If the roads work and the trash system works and the air is clean and the schools are well supplied and safe then the world is great and everything improves. And paying tax does that.

    1. Re:Short sighted attitude by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This idea that everyone should pay nothing in taxes is why we can't have good things

      Except I pay more in taxes than even last year and I still don't have nice things. Roads are shit, PD/FD response times are worse than ever, teachers don't have the materials they need.

      So where's that money going? It's not going to infrastructure or support. This has been the trend for the past decade, probably longer. So enough's enough; they can make do with what they have and go fuck themselves if they want to whine about not having enough.

      ( I liked your joke about how the rich will pay their fair share. I'll giggle about that one for a while, especially since the rich are usually the ones making the laws. )

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:Short sighted attitude by meglon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So where's that money going?

      Establishing and maintaining a global military hegemony, and tax breaks for the wealthiest... you know, good old conservative values: murder and looting.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    3. Re:Short sighted attitude by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Maybe stop voting for idiots who can't handle your money properly?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Short sighted attitude by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      It is easy to have that attitude, much harder to actually fix the problems.

      The issues, at least as I see them are: historical trend of pushing costs forward to balance books today; focus on funding new things rather than maintaining existing infrastructure; and ignorance of the population of the cost/benefit of services provided.

      The biggest point on pushing costs forward are retirement plans and bonds that run the duration of something's life, rather than a more logical "major maintenance interval."

      The next issue is that whatever infrastructure or systems/services you build have high operating costs, and this eats up a growing portion of the budget.

      And of course, the ignorance you profess is why the problem is worse in red states. If someone with $1MM annual income pays 7% in state income tax and you pay 10% on $100k, they are still paying more than you. If they manage to create 3 jobs at $100k each (I'm puking a little in my mouth using this parallel), and that saves them another 1-2% on taxes, is it a good use of tax policy?

      There is truth that the bureaucracy feeds in itself and needs to be rationalized periodically to keep government budget from expanding at more than the general inflation (plus the value of additional services provided). There is also truth that we should find dividends in the policies we enact-- better education, less crime, fewer cops as an example. But, just starving the beast doesn't solve anything, nor does flailing around and changing direction every few years.

    5. Re:Short sighted attitude by bronney · · Score: 1

      that made me chuckle haha. good shit

    6. Re: Short sighted attitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i don't think making everyone as miserable and financially unprepared for retirement as you are is a good society-wide solution to budget problems induced by tax dodgers

    7. Re: Short sighted attitude by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      WRONG!

      The biggest line item on the Federal budget is not the military. It's going to entitlements. IE public system pensions, social security, and welfare.

      Want better funded services? Stop wasting money on bloated public pensions and end social security.

      Read until you get to the 2nd graph, not the first http://www.politifact.com/trut...

    8. Re:Short sighted attitude by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "significantly MORE taxes"

      "proper public funding"

      Not the same thing, Not even equivalent.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    9. Re: Short sighted attitude by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

      IE public system pensions, social security, and welfare.

      *sings* One of these things is not like the others......

      You should probably look up the difference between mandatory and discretionary spending when it comes to the federal budget, and their funding mechanisms. It's an extremely important subject, and your lack of understanding is why you mistakenly believe cutting Social Security or pensions will do anything to the discretionary budget.

    10. Re:Short sighted attitude by torkus · · Score: 1

      And multi-million dollar missiles to blow up thousand dollar targets.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    11. Re: Short sighted attitude by DaveSewhuk · · Score: 2

      Social Security and Medicare are payed in "entitlements", you pay in young, draw out when older. We are entitled to the money we payed in. It scales with the amount you pay in. Wars and such are expenses and discretionary, money that might as well be burnt in a bonfire.

    12. Re: Short sighted attitude by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Returns are paid with money from new "investors". Anyone younger than a certain age is going to take a loss on their Social Security investment. You're crazy if you think you're entitled to the money, it's already been stolen.

    13. Re:Short sighted attitude by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      In addition to you paying more taxes the rich would pay more taxes.

      Now you are in a fantasy world. So long as the rich can legally buy politicians they won't be increasing THEIR taxes they'll either drop (as they just did) or be given ever more tax loop holes (as they just did)

    14. Re: Short sighted attitude by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      It's not a Ponzi scheme at all. It's a pay-as-you-go system, with the simple exception that the first generation got a free ride, since they hadn't been paying to begin with. Yes, when you have a big generation like the baby boomers living off of the payments of a smaller generation, it puts stress on the system. But then again, when the baby boomers die off, you'll have that smaller generation supported by the payments of the bigger Millenials group. So, there are times when surpluses accumulate and other times where the system has to run a deficit. That doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme.

      Of course, the surpluses were saved as IOU's - which are little different than had the government sold T-bills to cover its deficits rather than used the SS surplus. And sure, the government shouldn't have been running deficits in good times and bad. But, y'know, in good times Republicans say their tax cuts are "your money", regardless of the IOU's. And in bad times, everybody thinks deficits are necessary (and they're right).

      But in any case, nobody's going to 'take a loss' - i.e., the benefits will be paid (3rd rail, and all that). Oh, sure, the Club for Growth will scream bloody murder, but still...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    15. Re:Short sighted attitude by chiefcrash · · Score: 1

      I noticed a funny thing when I worked IT for the county school district: every teacher I worked with, despite being some of the leftest leaning folks you ever met, would always vote "NO" on any tax increase earmarked for school funding.

      If you asked them why, their answer was simple: that money would never filter down to the classroom. It would get wasted on some pilot program for fancy new tech in the classroom (that would never get implemented), while they struggled to keep paper in stock.

      I personally watched as the higher ups tried to explain how they were *saving* money by giving all the superintendents a raise. During a spending freeze....

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    16. Re:Short sighted attitude by dargaud · · Score: 1

      It is likely that your quality of life would improve if you paid significantly MORE taxes. In addition to you paying more taxes the rich would pay more taxes.

      While I agree with your 1st point, your 2nd one has proved wrong, at least for me. In the last 10 years my wages have stayed flat, not even accounting for inflation (meaning they've gone down), and my taxes have simply doubled in the last 2 years. While the 1% have increased their global ownership by 50%. So I DO pay more taxes; they DON'T.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    17. Re:Short sighted attitude by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      It is likely that your quality of life would improve if you paid significantly MORE taxes.

      I think the quality of life for government employees would improve. I would still be stuck with the same crappy roads and schools.

    18. Re: Short sighted attitude by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      ALL Ponzi Schemes are 'pay-as-you-go'. The only reason social security is still going is because you get to legally force the next group of suckers to 'invest', whether they want to or not.

    19. Re: Short sighted attitude by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      If you seriously think the government hasn't long been double dipping into social security to fund general liabilities, then you are quite frankly an idiot.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...

    20. Re: Short sighted attitude by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Well, they're supposed to be pyramid shaped - until they collapse, I suppose. And yes, because the relative number of contributors and beneficiaries fluctuates, there may be times when it resembles a Ponzi scheme. But, y'know, full faith and credit of the US should smooth out the variations. Unless you think life expectancy is going to keep rising forever (hint - it's not).

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    21. Re: Short sighted attitude by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If you seriously think the government hasn't long been double dipping into social security to fund general liabilities, then you are quite frankly an idiot.

      The Social Security trust fund buys US Government bonds. As an investment. That's why it's a "trust fund". The proceeds of the sale of those bonds go into the general fund. But the bonds still exist. And are paid out when they mature. They are not all suddenly due at a future date. A small part of them are getting paid every single month....and the proceeds are used to buy more bonds.

      Your claim is that the money is just "gone". It isn't. It's invested. Can the government default on those bonds? Only if they want to annihilate the US Government's creditworthiness. There's no way that the market would believe "just these bonds and nothing else." So default would be a massive economic disaster that even a nacho cheese Dorito with bad hair can see coming.

      As for your Forbes article, the thing you didn't quite understand is the people cutting the Social Security checks, the power to run their computers and printers, the the postage to mail them and many other things are paid out of the discretionary budget. They are not funded out of the Social Security fund. So when the article talks about "running out of money", they're talking about the debt limit for the discretionary budget. Social Security still had it's funding and a few trillion in the bank....well, in the bond portfolio, mostly. If the money was as fungible as you claim, then that giant pile of cash would be rather useful in avoiding a debt limit, no?

      Again, you do not understand the subject at all, which makes you a fantastic target for propaganda. Which you've absorbed and now believe to be the truth.

    22. Re: Short sighted attitude by redlemming · · Score: 1

      This. And this is why raising taxes for education is the lure. Nobody would willingly raise taxes to give a retired government worker 3x the retirement of a non-government worker. The state government employees know this. They divert funds from everything the public wants into their bloated pension plans. Then they tell you your roads and bridges are crumbling, schools are failing and the state is broke because you aren't paying enough.

      These pension plans are theft. The people who defend them say things like "government employees pass on higher paying options in the private sector and deserve such a pension." Except this is not true. Many jobs in government pay more up front, come with amazing benefits AND have a defined pension plan.

      The problem is, so many people are now dependent on these pensions so you cannot just take them away. A lot of recipients never saved for retirement expecting the pension would be there.

      That said, the problem is not that people aren't paying enough. The problem is that we are paying too much and that money is not going to the things we expect.

      Moving forward, no state should offer its employees a state paid pension plan. Somwthing like a 401k with some form of matching is better. Let employees take ownership of their retirement goals.

      I would go further, and say that government pension plans are a violation of fundamental rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments (rights retained by the people, rights reserved to the people).

      In general, future generations have a right to not be born into debt, whether individual or government debt. We can allow some exceptions (e.g. an asteroid is about to smash into the earth, destroying the human race, so we'll spend as much money as needed to divert it). We might even allow a World War exception. Ordinary wars (everything since WW2) should not be grounds for government debt. Any war (other than a World War) that does not involve an actual physical invasion of the homeland should not be grounds for government debt.

      In short, government should be paying "cash on the barrelhead" - and should have a "rainy day" fund to address emergencies.

      Hence, it follows that most government debt exists in violation of fundamental rights protected by the US Bill of Rights - and a violation of the oaths of office sworn by government officials.

      Pension plans are a form of debt, and hence a violation of fundamental rights. Creating them is an illegal exercise of government authority, as was creating the social security system. Pay government employees what the market demands, and let them use the same retirement systems as everybody else (if those systems aren't working, then fix the rules).

      Having said this, we're clearly stuck with existing commitments - they have to be honoured. But government at all levels needs to get rid of pension plans for future employees - and social security should disappear entirely (welfare systems with appropriate reform, or some sort of reasonable UBI/reverse income tax, could handle any issues here, such as people that will never be competent to plan their own retirement).

      The government has a history of breaking the law, and is continuing to break the law today, but that is no reason to tolerate this moving forward. A government that can not comply with the law is not a legitimate government - and loses it's moral authority, which creates all kinds of problems for society.

      Many things we should expect government to do in a competent and efficient manner do not happen because government debt consumes too much of the budget. Road infrastructure, for example, lags many years beyond the needs of the population - instead, it should happen BEFORE it is needed. Infrastructure maintenance is often deferred, at which point things become much more expensive to fix. Facilities such as rest areas get closed due to lack of funds, limiting the right to travel. Mass transit is a disaster. Police forces are being used as mobile tax c

    23. Re: Short sighted attitude by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      If you seriously think the government hasn't long been double dipping into social security to fund general liabilities, then you are quite frankly an idiot.

      The Social Security trust fund buys US Government bonds. As an investment. That's why it's a "trust fund". The proceeds of the sale of those bonds go into the general fund. But the bonds still exist. And are paid out when they mature. They are not all suddenly due at a future date. A small part of them are getting paid every single month....and the proceeds are used to buy more bonds.

      Your claim is that the money is just "gone". It isn't. It's invested. Can the government default on those bonds? Only if they want to annihilate the US Government's creditworthiness. There's no way that the market would believe "just these bonds and nothing else." So default would be a massive economic disaster that even a nacho cheese Dorito with bad hair can see coming.

      As for your Forbes article, the thing you didn't quite understand is the people cutting the Social Security checks, the power to run their computers and printers, the the postage to mail them and many other things are paid out of the discretionary budget. They are not funded out of the Social Security fund. So when the article talks about "running out of money", they're talking about the debt limit for the discretionary budget. Social Security still had it's funding and a few trillion in the bank....well, in the bond portfolio, mostly. If the money was as fungible as you claim, then that giant pile of cash would be rather useful in avoiding a debt limit, no?

      Again, you do not understand the subject at all, which makes you a fantastic target for propaganda. Which you've absorbed and now believe to be the truth.

      You need to do some more reading sweetheart:

      A circle jerk is still a circle jerk. When the money for the government stops, the checks stop going out. IE the money doesn't exist and seniors go hungry.

      But keep on believing your fairy tale. I've already taken the option of reducing my salary paid to me to $35k while increasing the dividend payout.

    24. Re: Short sighted attitude by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I've already taken the option of reducing my salary paid to me to $35k while increasing the dividend payout.

      So you've decided to tie your retirement to the fortunes of a single company that happens to be your employer.

      How'd that work out for Enron employees? It's quite clever to follow in their footsteps.

      A circle jerk is still a circle jerk. When the money for the government stops, the checks stop going out. IE the money doesn't exist and seniors go hungry.

      When the sun sets, obviously the sun is gone. You can't access it so it no longer exists.

      Or perhaps it still exists and you can't access it.....almost like the money existing in the Trust Fund, but no checks being sent out....

      Again, you know almost nothing on this subject, and charlatans who want to steal from you have told you a story. You believe the story, making their theft so much easier.

    25. Re: Short sighted attitude by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      Your autism must make you a JOY to those who put up with you.

      I own my own business, set my own salary, pay as much as I want into the system, and at the end of the day use that income to purchase more income producing assets like real estate, other businesses, and assets. Who said I'm tied to a singular business?

      In other words, I'm not a wage slave like yourself.

      Your trust in a dying system is admirable albeit foolish. I bet you also think taking out 6 figures in student loans for an English degree is a good idea too because it's a degree and the jobs will follow.

      Keep on that pipe dream autist Jeff!

    26. Re:Short sighted attitude by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      So where's that money going?

      Where is the money going? Have you been able to get any details? I realize it would take a bit of time investment, but have you contacted any city/county government accounting/financial department and asked? Or written an elected official and see if they could shed some light?

      If your city is large enough, you may have a convenient GAO-like non-profit that could supply you with the details.

      I've not been bothered enough by my tax deductions to do research myself, but if I actually made useful amounts of money and felt that the taxes were being squandered I would look into it a bit (or at least think really hard about doing so.)

  11. Funding is not the problem by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem isn't the amount of money allocated for schools. The problem is where that money goes - namely, to bloated administrative costs. Fire half of the non-teaching staff, set the salaries of the rest so that no one earns more than the teachers, and - magic - suddenly schools will have plenty of money.

    Of course, that's only the first problem with public education in the US. There are a whole lot of other problems: the culture of passing students who ought to fail, the inability to fire incompetent teachers, discipline problems, etc...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Funding is not the problem by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem isn't the amount of money allocated for schools. The problem is where that money goes - namely, to bloated administrative costs. Fire half of the non-teaching staff, set the salaries of the rest so that no one earns more than the teachers, and - magic - suddenly schools will have plenty of money.

      Of course, that's only the first problem with public education in the US. There are a whole lot of other problems: the culture of passing students who ought to fail, the inability to fire incompetent teachers, discipline problems, etc...

      While that is some of the problems, there are others than need to be addressed. I know a number of teachers and the complaints are the same. Parents who blame them for their child's problems in school; the homework's too hard, too much, the teacher doesn't know how to teach, it's never that their snowflake is lazy and or undisciplined. Overcrowded classes without enough desks or books, the administrations reply is to think outside the box. Having a contract for X days and then being told, "oh, we need to save money so you are getting a bunch of unpaid furlough days." One teacher had a parent expect her to monitor what the child was eating because she was getting fat; of course the parent sent the kid to school with extra lunch money so the kid bought cookies and Cokes. They are going to a merit bonus system and teachers have been told no one can get higher than a 3 out of 4 because the county doesn't want to pay out bonuses. It's no wonder teachers in my district retire on the first day they can, even in the middle of the school year, as a final FU to the system. A recent survey showed over 70% would retire tomorrow if the could, and actively discourage anyone, especially student teachers, from entering the profession. They can't keep match and science teachers, and most new teachers leave after a couple of years; the veterans are marking time until they can retire.

      We simply do not value education and are getting what we pay for.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Funding is not the problem by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "teachers would have to gather and report ever-changing KPIs and sift through the new raft of curriculum and regulation changes, organise health and safety reviews and personal and school recertifications"

      Um...no? Those requirements are mandated by the very same bloated administrative staff, just at different levels. Those are the first people to fire. Start at the top (federal level), fire them all, because they have no mandate to be involved in local education in the first place. Then work your way down through the layers: State, county and city. Cut out the administrative crap all the way down.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    3. Re:Funding is not the problem by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Care to provide a management structure where the senior administrators make the same amount as teachers that will be effective?

      You could reasonably have one "manager" per 20 employees if the employees are fairly autonomous, but that type of person would make about twice as much. At the same pay rate, you are looking at a 1:6 ratio although they should be able to teach ~50%, and you still need someone to manage those people.

    4. Re:Funding is not the problem by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "the veterans are marking time until they can retire."

      That is always a sign that the retirement benefits are too generous.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:Funding is not the problem by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      "the veterans are marking time until they can retire."

      That is always a sign that the retirement benefits are too generous.

      Ture, just like waiting for a sales bonus, stock options to vest, etc. As with anyone, once you have a certain amount of skin in the game your viewpoint is often driven by economics.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:Funding is not the problem by Aequitarum+Custos · · Score: 1

      "the veterans are marking time until they can retire."

      That is always a sign that the retirement benefits are too generous.

      Or that their job is shitty and that should be fixed. I love my job, and the only reason I'd have the mindset of "I'm quitting as soon as I'm able to" is if the environment was so fucked up and out of my control that I'd be happier not doing what I love. What would it take for you to not be happy doing what you love? Because that's the situation some of these people face.

  12. Re:Troll? by freudigst · · Score: 1

    I would guess that the Anonymous Coward with the interpretation skills of a 21st century American inner city resident is probably the troll.

    Oh yeah: Uh, his statement supports your opinion, mate.

  13. overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Teachers in the US are paid more than in a lot of other countries that deliver better performance. And within the US, there is little correlation between teacher salary and teacher performance. The US isn't going to move up from its mediocre PISA scores by paying teachers more. Instead, what the US needs to do is to give parents more choice and control over where their kids get educated and what they learn. Few people would voluntarily pay $10000/year for the crappy education that their kids are getting. Schools that don't live up to the requirements of parents need to be closed aggressively and their teachers fired.

    We should also remove the special perks for teachers: they should work a full working year, with a few weeks off, get the same kind of health insurance as other people in their income bracket, and get 401(k) or 403(b) plans instead of pensions.

    1. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, you want the ones that now work as teachers instead of an industry where they could make a LOT more money to leave because the job perks they stayed for are gone, leaving only the bottom of the barrel to teach your kids?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words, you want the ones that now work as teachers instead of an industry where they could make a LOT more money to leave because the job perks they stayed for are gone, leaving only the bottom of the barrel to teach your kids?

      Quite the opposite: I want education to become an enterprise where good teachers are highly rewarded and bad teachers are fired; where good schools are rewarded and bad schools are closed.

      The public education system as it is rewards good and batch teachers largely alike, because all those benefits and perks of the job accrue to teachers regardless of their quality. I want the money that is currently wasted on bad teachers and bad schools to go to the good teachers and good schools instead.

    3. Re:overpaid, underperforming by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Teachers don't get Social Security.

    4. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You are aware that the supply of teachers is not unlimited and as far as I can tell not even on par of what's required to teach properly, yes? In other words, let's do a conservative estimate and assume that 30% of the teachers are bad. You fire them. Ok. Who teaches 30% of the kids now?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      We should also remove the special perks for teachers: they should work a full working year, with a few weeks off, get the same kind of health insurance as other people in their income bracket, and get 401(k) or 403(b) plans instead of pensions.

      This whole "teachers get the summer off as a paid vacation" is a fallacy. Most teachers are paid for woking X days; where I live they can get the check only during the school year or spread over 12 months; even so teh summers are spent prepping for the next year. Anyone could have the same deal if their company offers an unpaid sabbatical leave of 3 months. They don't get overtime if the have to stay late for an event or a parent insists on their conference be held after normal working hours. As for benefits, they are average at best in my district. Yes, they are one of the few jobs that still offers defined benefit pensions, but even then the county messes with them by giving bonuses in lieu of pay raises so they don't get included in pension calculations.

      Yes, there are bad teachers; and benefits vary greatly by state; but at the rate we are going the only people who will teach are those who can't do anything else or coaches.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      This whole "teachers get the summer off as a paid vacation" is a fallacy. Most teachers are paid for woking X days;

      It's not a fallacy, because when people compare teacher salaries, they tend to compare "annual salaries", which are usually not corrected for the fact that teachers don't work summers.

      Anyone could have the same deal if their company offers an unpaid sabbatical leave of 3 months.

      Correct. And that's how we should compare teachers salaries to other salaries, namely by adding another 33% on top of the teachers salaries to account for the 3 months they don't work.

      They don't get overtime if the have to stay late for an event or a parent insists on their conference be held after normal working hours

      Oh, cry me a f*cking river. Pretty much everybody who doesn't work on an assembly line does that.

      Yes, there are bad teachers; and benefits vary greatly by state; but at the rate we are going the only people who will teach are those who can't do anything else or coaches.

      That's a meaningless statements.

      I think we have just identified a teacher who really shouldn't be teaching. They let you loose on students?

    7. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      You are aware that the supply of teachers is not unlimited and as far as I can tell not even on par of what's required to teach properly, yes? In other words, let's do a conservative estimate and assume that 30% of the teachers are bad. You fire them. Ok. Who teaches 30% of the kids now?

      The reason we have a teacher shortage and a glut of awful teachers is precisely because teaching currently isn't rewarded based on performance: a profession that rewards people based on tenure is utterly unattractive to above average workers in that profession.

      So: get rid of the crappy teachers, reward performance, and the teacher shortage will resolve itself.

    8. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Teachers don't get Social Security.

      Oh, good thing you point that out. Teachers are fairly high income and their return on social security taxes would be awful. So that is another ripoff: instead of being forced to subsidize lower income earners, like the rest of us, they get to take their money home with them and invest it in something with higher returns.

    9. Re:overpaid, underperforming by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I have known teachers to work in restaurants until a job opened up in the school where they wanted to teach. They could have gotten a job instantly in aplace where no one wants to teach. Degreed, certified, ready to teach, waiting tables or working as a restaurant manager while they wait--patiently. There is an oversupply.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    10. Re:overpaid, underperforming by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Another benefit of the job. They get PERS which is their money--investments which actually grow.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      This whole "teachers get the summer off as a paid vacation" is a fallacy. Most teachers are paid for woking X days;

      It's not a fallacy, because when people compare teacher salaries, they tend to compare "annual salaries", which are usually not corrected for the fact that teachers don't work summers.

      Anyone could have the same deal if their company offers an unpaid sabbatical leave of 3 months.

      Correct. And that's how we should compare teachers salaries to other salaries, namely by adding another 33% on top of the teachers salaries to account for the 3 months they don't work.

      Except teachers don't have an option of working summers teaching and getting the extra pay, which is why the whole summer off argument is specious. I'm willing to bet most people would not be willing to take a mandatory 2 - 3 months unpaid leave per year and still be told although we are paying you less you're really making 33% more.

      They don't get overtime if the have to stay late for an event or a parent insists on their conference be held after normal working hours

      Oh, cry me a f*cking river. Pretty much everybody who doesn't work on an assembly line does that.

      Except teachers, at least where I live, have a contract for a certain number of paid hours per week but are expected to work extra hours none the less; of course the county can decide to have mandatory unpaid furlough days to cut costs despite the contractual agreement. Your assembly line comment is closer to true than you realize, as it is easier to push a student along, assembly line fashion, with high grades than it is to give them C's or below. We're getting what e pay for, and I don't blame teachers for taking the easy way out.

      Yes, there are bad teachers; and benefits vary greatly by state; but at the rate we are going the only people who will teach are those who can't do anything else or coaches.

      That's a meaningless statements.

      I think we have just identified a teacher who really shouldn't be teaching. They let you loose on students?

      Since your arguments failed you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominems to try to make your case. I don't teach nor have I been a teacher, I was making an observation based on my experience knowing a number of teachers.

      It's just as well I never taught public or private school; the first time a parent said "What are we going to do about my snowflake failing your class?" I'd be saying "Unless you got a mouse in your pocket there is no we in this, bitch. Either your snowflake does the work and passes or doesn't and fails. Your call. Have a nice day."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    12. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Except teachers don't have an option of working summers teaching and getting the extra pay, which is why the whole summer off argument is specious

      Plenty of teachers take other jobs during the summer.

      Except teachers, at least where I live, have a contract for a certain number of paid hours per week but are expected to work extra hours none the less

      Teachers are not supposed to work extra hours, they are supposed to be skilled and professional enough to get the job done in the hours they have. Elementary and high school teaching should not be so intellectually taxing or unpredictable that you need extensive preparation for your lessons. University professors do need extensive preparation for lectures, which is why their teaching load is usually much lower than that of elementary and high school teachers.

      Since your arguments failed you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominems to try to make your case.

      No, you were trying to make it ad hominem, namely by giving the false impression of being a teacher.

      I don't teach nor have I been a teacher,

      I'm glad to hear it. In contrast, I have been a teacher, and I come from a family of teacher. So, I can tell you from personal experience, in addition to rational arguments, that American teachers are overpaid and underperforming, and that their arguments for why they should receive higher pay are totally unfounded.

    13. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How do you plan to gauge "performance" in teachers? Please don't say that you want to use the test scores of their pupils, else you're opening a completely different can of worms that you won't ever close, as the funding of schools based on test scores should have taught by now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then I guess it's time to find out why someone would rather work as a waiter, of all the jobs, than at an "unattractive" school.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      How do you plan to gauge "performance" in teachers?

      By whether parents are choosing to send their kids to those teachers. That's the way we measure performance in a free market.

    16. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because parents have a lot of choice in that matter. That's like saying Comcast must be a great ISP, considering how many people want to subscribe with them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because parents have a lot of choice in that matter.

      It's easy for parents to have a lot of choice in that matter: give them school vouchers and free school choice. Teachers and teachers unions object to that because they know full well that a large percentage of them would cease to have a job in teaching.

      That's like saying Comcast must be a great ISP, considering how many people want to subscribe with them.

      Similar to public schools, Comcast is a government-maintained near-monopoly. Of course Comcast sucks just like public schools: all government-maintained monopolies restrict choice and they all suck.

    18. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Does that voucher include transport to and from a school that's an hour away because there are no "good" schools around the areas where some families can actually afford to live? Who's going to organize that transport and who pays for it?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Does that voucher include transport to and from a school that's an hour away because there are no "good" schools around the areas where some families can actually afford to live? Who's going to organize that transport and who pays for it?

      I suggest you look up statistics on schools and school districts before you continue to demonstrate what a vile prick you are.

    20. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry for pooping in your cereal, but unfortunately reality does not bend to wishful thinking of model systems that work so awesomely in theory. Not my fault, I swear.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Except teachers don't have an option of working summers teaching and getting the extra pay, which is why the whole summer off argument is specious

      Plenty of teachers take other jobs during the summer.

      Which is irrelevant to how teachers are paid.

      Except teachers, at least where I live, have a contract for a certain number of paid hours per week but are expected to work extra hours none the less

      Teachers are not supposed to work extra hours, they are supposed to be skilled and professional enough to get the job done in the hours they have. Elementary and high school teaching should not be so intellectually taxing or unpredictable that you need extensive preparation for your lessons. University professors do need extensive preparation for lectures, which is why their teaching load is usually much lower than that of elementary and high school teachers.

      Depends on the subject. I know mostly special ed teachers who spend summers preparing individual lesson plans for their students and preparing beginning of year tests so they can get a baseline to be able to show "progress" on how their kids learned something. Add in the expectations of some parents that the teacher should "cure" their kid and you have a real mess.

      You have an awful high opinion of professors, most I've known teach at best one or two classes a year and reuse their notes and tests, most of their time is spent on research.

      Since your arguments failed you feel it necessary to resort to ad hominems to try to make your case.

      No, you were trying to make it ad hominem, namely by giving the false impression of being a teacher.

      Never claimed to be a teacher yet you added in an ad hominem and now claim it was me who did that. False news, much?

      I don't teach nor have I been a teacher,

      I'm glad to hear it. In contrast, I have been a teacher, and I come from a family of teacher. So, I can tell you from personal experience, in addition to rational arguments, that American teachers are overpaid and underperforming, and that their arguments for why they should receive higher pay are totally unfounded.

      I'm sorry if you and your family are the underperforming and overpaid teachers you reference. My experience is many teachers are not.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    22. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You: Except teachers don't have an option of working summers
      Me: Plenty of teachers take other jobs during the summer.
      You: Which is irrelevant to how teachers are paid.

      Do you even think before you post?

      I'm sorry if you and your family are the underperforming and overpaid teachers you reference.

      You misunderstood: I'm an immigrant. I'm comparing the high pay and poor performance of American public school teachers to the low pay and better performance of teachers abroad.

    23. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      You: Except teachers don't have an option of working summers Me: Plenty of teachers take other jobs during the summer. You: Which is irrelevant to how teachers are paid.

      Do you even think before you post?

      I'm sorry if you and your family are the underperforming and overpaid teachers you reference.

      Heh, do you even understand what I said? You seem to be unable to understand the simple economic concept that teachers are only paid for the actual time worked (typically 10 months) and do not get paid summer vacations; and insist on bringing up irrelevant arguments to how teachers (or anyone, for that manner) are paid.

      You misunderstood: I'm an immigrant. I'm comparing the high pay and poor performance of American public school teachers to the low pay and better performance of teachers abroad.

      Interestingly enough, some countries with lower salaries than the US do worse, some do better. One challenge with the data is the sheer size of the US and variations in pay and test results by regions or states makes overall averages misleading, a better comparison would be by states or regions to other countries.

      If you look at the OECD, US teachers are paid below the OECD average yet student scores are above the OECD average in science and reading, but below in math. Korea seems to get high results for high pay, poor Luxembourg pays well for poor results, and Slovakia gets poor results but pays poorly.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    24. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You seem to be unable to understand the simple economic concept that teachers are only paid for the actual time worked (typically 10 months) and do not get paid summer vacations

      Teachers also don't get unpaid summer vacations; what teachers get is several months where they can sell their labor to anybody who wants to hire them, often taking advantage of the status, security, and education that their government job confers upon them. That's a sweet deal that almost nobody else gets. At a minimum, you need to add another 25% of salary on top of the teacher's salary to make it comparable to other salaries just to account for the smaller amount of time they work (185 contracted work days vs about 230 for private sector employees). And that's not even taking into account benefits like health insurance and retirement, which keep accruing.

      If you look at the OECD, US teachers are paid below the OECD average

      That's simply not true even if you look at nominal salaries (the analysis in HuffPo is bogus, just look at their numbers). But HuffPo doesn't tell you the whole picture: you need to add another 25% because of the shorter work year, and then another 25% on top of that for the nice benefits teachers receive. And on top of that, taxes in the US are much lower than elsewhere, and teachers also receive benefits like 403(b) plans that are not available to teachers in other countries. Just the fact that teachers don't have to pay into social security is a huge benefit by itself.

      Take it from someone who has known teachers in both the US and several other countries: US teacher are being rewarded lavishly.

    25. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be unable to understand the simple economic concept that teachers are only paid for the actual time worked (typically 10 months) and do not get paid summer vacations

      Teachers also don't get unpaid summer vacations; what teachers get is several months where they can sell their labor to anybody who wants to hire them, often taking advantage of the status, security, and education that their government job confers upon them. That's a sweet deal that almost nobody else gets. At a minimum, you need to add another 25% of salary on top of the teacher's salary to make it comparable to other salaries just to account for the smaller amount of time they work (185 contracted work days vs about 230 for private sector employees). And that's not even taking into account benefits like health insurance and retirement, which keep accruing.

      If you look at the OECD, US teachers are paid below the OECD average

      That's simply not true even if you look at nominal salaries (the analysis in HuffPo is bogus, just look at their numbers). But HuffPo doesn't tell you the whole picture: you need to add another 25% because of the shorter work year, and then another 25% on top of that for the nice benefits teachers receive. And on top of that, taxes in the US are much lower than elsewhere, and teachers also receive benefits like 403(b) plans that are not available to teachers in other countries. Just the fact that teachers don't have to pay into social security is a huge benefit by itself.

      Take it from someone who has known teachers in both the US and several other countries: US teacher are being rewarded lavishly.

      Sigh, I don't know if you are deliberately being obtuse or simply fail to understand simple economics and prefer to ignore facts that don't fit your narrative. At least you admit to being a former teacher and thus no longer miseducating anyone. HAND.

      FYI: Brookings Institute https://www.brookings.edu/blog...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    26. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I don't know if you are deliberately being obtuse or simply fail to understand simple economics and prefer to ignore facts that don't fit your narrative.

      Let me state it again clearly: at $60000/year, a high school teacher makes an hourly salary of $40, while a regular industry worker makes an hourly salary of $32, for the simple reason that the high school teacher is contracted to work far fewer hours. On top of that are massive benefits that workers in private industry don't get.

      FYI: Brookings Institute https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]

      The Brookings study goes out of its way to push a political agenda, and it is a testament to lying with statistics. Their main argument is based on a comparison between teachers and "similarly educated workers". But if you have an education degree, you are not "similarly educated" to people with other degrees; an education degree is the bottom of the barrel degree that people with the lowest test scores and lowest IQs go into. And like you, we have to assume that Brookings erroneously uses annual salary data instead of hourly or monthly data in their comparisons and neglects benefits.

      Fortunately, Americans are getting tired to pay for people like you and are starting to see you for what you are: underperforming, greedy, and mendacious. That is why we need to privatize large portions of our education system and move to vouchers and charter schools. And it is going to happen, whether you want to or not.

      Oh, and that cushy retirement plan you think you have? Don't count on getting it.

    27. Re:overpaid, underperforming by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I don't know if you are deliberately being obtuse or simply fail to understand simple economics and prefer to ignore facts that don't fit your narrative.

      Let me state it again clearly: at $60000/year, a high school teacher makes an hourly salary of $40, while a regular industry worker makes an hourly salary of $32, for the simple reason that the high school teacher is contracted to work far fewer hours. On top of that are massive benefits that workers in private industry don't get.

      Sigh. The average teacher working time in the US per year is 1900 hours per the OECD; which yields an hourly rate of $32. Facts are a pesky thing.

      The Brookings study goes out of its way to push a political agenda, and it is a testament to lying with statistics. Their main argument is based on a comparison between teachers and "similarly educated workers". But if you have an education degree, you are not "similarly educated" to people with other degrees; an education degree is the bottom of the barrel degree that people with the lowest test scores and lowest IQs go into. And like you, we have to assume that Brookings erroneously uses annual salary data instead of hourly or monthly data in their comparisons and neglects benefits.

      Fortunately, Americans are getting tired to pay for people like you and are starting to see you for what you are: underperforming, greedy, and mendacious. That is why we need to privatize large portions of our education system and move to vouchers and charter schools. And it is going to happen, whether you want to or not.

      Oh, and that cushy retirement plan you think you have? Don't count on getting it.

      If you bothered to read you'd realize I am not, nor have been, a teacher, but feel free to continue your ad-hominem attacks as I find them amusing. I think charter schools are a good idea, provided they must adhere to the same admission and educational requirements, such as providing access to all students on a non-preferential basis.

      I'm sorry you feel your and your family's education degree is a "bottom of the barrel;" and must concur with your statement that you and your family have "the lowest test scores and lowest IQs." I can see why you are bitter.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    28. Re:overpaid, underperforming by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Sigh. The average teacher working time in the US per year is 1900 hours per the OECD; which yields an hourly rate of $32. Facts are a pesky thing.

      Statutory working time for teachers in the US is 1600 hours according to the OECD, not 1900 hours, yielding an hourly salary of $37.50 (that's slightly less than you get from the number of working days). However, it is unclear whether teachers even reach that, since they don't even reach statutory in class hours.

      and must concur with your statement that you and your family have "the lowest test scores and lowest IQs."

      Reading and reasoning aren't your strength apparently. You're confusing averages and individual performance. On average education majors have some of the lowest IQs among college majors, which is why on average they earn less and why the Brookings study is bullshit. Furthermore, those statistics apply to US degrees and are another symptom of America's broken education system; they don't apply to my family.

      I can see why you are bitter.

      I'm not bitter, I'm angry, there is a difference. I'm angry that people like you promote screwing over both American kids and American tax payers. And don't try to fool people: you have a personal stake in this, whether you admit it or not.

  14. I do that by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I buy office supplies and even software for my work because the administrative headaches of ordering such are often not worth the hassle. I'd rather work on IT than procurement paperwork. I've done this at multiple companies. Bad apples often cheat the procurement such that many orgs end up putting in lots of roadblocks.

    True, I'm probably paid better than most teachers, though. Still, for smaller things, it often just makes life easier to go get them yourself.

    1. Re:I do that by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Bad apples often cheat the procurement such that many orgs end up putting in lots of roadblocks.

      Yeah sorry about that. But that $0.30 BIC pen fetches $0.10 on the black market and I can get it for FREE!

    2. Re:I do that by sjames · · Score: 1

      You also aren't also buying supplies for 100 other people (lowball of 5 classes @ 20 students/class).

    3. Re:I do that by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You also aren't also buying supplies for 100 other people (lowball of 5 classes @ 20 students/class).

      One title of work software can be fairly pricey. Also, a teacher typically doesn't have to purchase one for each student. For example, a teacher can purchase say 5 color pencil sets and ask students to share them in class or rotate rather than buy one for each student (100 sets approx.) Sure, sharing is inconvenient and requires coordination, but is good social skills practice for the work world.

    4. Re:I do that by sjames · · Score: 1

      You think work software is expensive, try educational software.

      Meanwhile, if 15 kids have to share and 5 kids have parents who can buy them their own, you're back to the unlevel playing field that public school is supposed to solve.

    5. Re:I do that by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Buying a copy for each kid or computer is indeed asking too much of a teacher. But, perhaps they could buy 1 or 2 copies and rotate student lab time for it.

    6. Re:I do that by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      I assume you understand that those actions enable administrative headaches and decreases your nominal income, and have decided this outcome is worth more than the time required to change the process. The PHBs see that the IT department has the software and supplies it needs to work, and if they're able to acquire those then the procurement process must be fine. (Also the total dollar requests from IT is slightly lower than anticipated so they can probably shave a few bucks from budgeting in that area come next year.)

      Squeaky wheel gets the grease, but if there's no squeaking no one bothers to look at the rotting/rusting spoke.

  15. Continuation by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Are they still talking about arming teachers?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Continuation by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are they still talking about arming teachers?

      Yes, but they won't be allowed to carry around politicians or administrators. Parent / teacher conferences, however, will be a lot more cordial when the teacher is openly packing a loaded .45 in a shoulder holster.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  16. Re:Why do we spend so much on books? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Now that's just silly. How the fuck are book publishers going to make money that way?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  17. Re: particularly in Republican states. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Damn right. How much education does that pleb need to say "yes sir" and bring me my slippers?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Voting problems by sjbe · · Score: 2

    If you vote out your politicians regardless if they do a good job

    That's not really the problem. The problem is that once they get in it's damn near impossible to get them out of office no matter how badly they do. Incumbents get re-elected at rates over 90% thanks to a combination of voter apathy, gerrymandering, confirmation bias, and other factors.

    As for the "no tax increases, never!"-attitude, that really doesn't work at all for tax revenue drops or increased costs, particularly unexpected ones (like natural disasters).

    Of course you are correct but good luck getting that fact to penetrate the skull of your typical "taxes = evil" republican or worse, one of the tea party variety. So now we have a national debt of around $21 Trillion which is about $65,000 owed for each man, woman and child in the US. The ONLY way this is going to go away is to raise taxes combined with some rather drastic cuts to the military and/or medicare. (the rest of the budget isn't big enough to make a difference) The fact that tax revenues fluctuate is utterly lost in the political debate.

    1. Re:Voting problems by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      ... but good luck getting that fact to penetrate the skull of your typical "taxes = evil" republican or worse, one of the tea party variety. So now we have a national debt of around $21 Trillion which is about $65,000 owed for each man, woman and child in the US.

      Yep, only the Republicans were responsible for all that debt. I'll give you a clue - both parties are bad. The longer you hold on to the illusion that if we could get just our party elected then it would be OK the longer you are deluded. Illinois is run lock stock and barrel by Democrats and is utter bankrupt and will fail completely in the next decade. Both parties have had a majority in Congress plus the POTUS recently and neither has delivered key reforms. Obamacare was a disaster and the Tax cuts were too. Both shafted the middle class to give to corporations. Goldman Sachs bought both parties years ago. Until banksters start to meet guillotines don't expect it to get better.

    2. Re:Voting problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correction, Military, Medicare and Social Security make up the vast majority of the budget. (the rest of the budget makes no difference, it's like leftovers.) And to be clear, Social Security is the largest piece, followed by Medicare, followed by Military.

    3. Re:Voting problems by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, only the Republicans were responsible for all that debt. I'll give you a clue - both parties are bad.

      Bill Clinton left office with a budget surplus. The last W budget was more than $1T in the red. The last Obama budget was $600M in the red, when $200M of tax cuts were added in an attempt to appease Republicans. The one before that was $400M in the red. Meanwhile, the Trump tax cuts are ballooning the deficit nicely.

      Tell me again how both parties are equally bad when it comes to budget deficits.

      Illinois is run lock stock and barrel by Democrats

      You better tell current Illinois governor Bruce Rauner that he's a Democrat. He'll be rather surprised, since he's a Republican.

      Also, the Illinois legislature has 67 D seats and 51 R seats. While that gives Democrats control of the legislature, it's pretty far from "lock stock and barrel". That would be more like California, with 53 D seats and 25 R seats and the governor.

      Obamacare was a disaster

      To call something a 'disaster', you've got to indicate the criteria you are measuring with.

      There's a lot more people with health insurance that they can afford. There's also things like the elimination of lifetime limits and minimum required coverage that isn't shit if you happen to have ovaries. Those are rather positive if you are measuring by "less people dying because their checking account doesn't have 7 figures in it".

      It wasn't cheap, but it wasn't supposed to be - the theory is free market competition would drive down prices over time and "over time" takes a while. After all, "Obamacare" was the plan designed for Bob Dole (R) to give in response to Bill Clinton's health care reform efforts, so it hews very close to "free markets" and other Republican shibboleths. That's why Republican Mitt Romney passed it in Massachusetts.

      Obama mistakenly thought that if he proposed a Republican reform plan with a couple tweaks (such as where subsidies faded out), then some Republicans would support the plan. And you can see how that worked out.

      Btw, "Obamacare", like most Republican social spending plans, is not a good plan. It assumes health care is an efficient market, and that's just not possible. But the assumption that all markets are efficient is core to modern Republicanism, so it had to be in the plan.

      Goldman Sachs bought both parties years ago

      Well, whatever you do, continue to pretend that all politicians are equally awful. That way there's no reward for bucking Goldman Sachs and thus getting the changes you want.

    4. Re:Voting problems by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Unlike our non-existant laws on false advertising you are not allowed to suggest or imply in any way that you are an incumbent when running for office--if you are not the incumbent. Not that it really matters materially but the suggestion that you are an incumbent dramatically increases your chances of being elected. I recall an election (don't remember which) where the challenging candidate sort of suggested he was the incumbent--all hell broke loose. (I think he used signs that said "Re-Elect such and such") Good luck getting our politicians to police shady suggestions in corporate advertising though.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:Voting problems by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I love that you give Obama credit for "cutting the budget" while simultaneously blaming the Republicans for refusing to pass a budget without those massive cuts

      I love how you read what you wanted to read instead of what was actually written.

      Over the last 38 years, the budget deficit has gone down when Democrats are "in power". The deficit has gone up when Republicans are "in power". "In power" meaning they are the party who is considered in-charge for an extended period of time (since the trend is far more important than an individual budget for measuring this).

      So no, the parties are not equal on this. Republicans understand that no one really gives a shit about the deficit. Democrats are stupid enough to believe the Very Serious People who say it's a major problem, and hamstring their policy because of it.

      You've also got the 'Obamacare' background wrong. A single writer in a conservative think-tank proposed a mandatory system like Obamacare adopted

      Are you under the illusion that the Heritage Foundation started working on this for fun? And that fun just happened to coincide with the same time the Clintons were working on a reform plan? And forgetting the minor detail that it was handed over to Dole as an alternative system, and only spiked when Gingrich came to power and torpedoed the whole reform effort?

      Also, Romney tried to veto most of Massachusetts plan - the Democrat legislature overrode his veto to implement it.

      Hey look! A lie!
      On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.
      Now, Romney did try to line-item-veto some sections of the bill, and those were overridden. But he signed the overall bill. Which makes sense because Romney proposed the bill to begin with. He didn't like some of the changes the legislature made, and tried to veto those.

      But hey, Republicans are all pure and would never ever ever do something like write or pass an "Obamacare" style plan. :eyeroll:

      To top it off, Obama didn't propose the Obamacare plan. Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats did it entirely without White House input, mostly by just assembling a wishlist of Health Insurance industry lobbyist proposals

      So....do you actually believe people's memories are this short, or do I need to provide you all the pictures and at-the-time articles about meetings at the White House?

      Obama made a proposal. Congress started running with it and Pelosi got it through the House quickly. The Senate was dragging its feet. Kennedy died, and Congress was about to abandon the effort. The Obama White House then became heavily involved in not dropping the proposal and getting Harry Reid to do his fucking job and pass the bills.

      How did you manage to write such a large post, and not get anything correct?

      Largely by not quoting the propaganda you've internalized. I realize this is a shock, but it turns out there's lots of people who are not accurately describing what is going on. Instead, they have a narrative they want to sell you.

  19. Get Off My Lawn! by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

    OK, showing my age here, but I remember when paper and pencils and such were provided by the school. You could, at your option, bring in your own (and notebooks, ring binders, and such, and we did. . . ), but basic materials were provided by the school.

    I also remember being a little shocked when I enrolled my daughters in public school (this was early-to-mid 1990s) they were given a list of supplies to bring in. A list that grew longer every year.

    At the same time, I noted that the libraries lacked recent books, and there were nearly as many "resources" as there were teachers. A K-5 elementary school had **3** secretaries and a vice-principal.

    In retrospect, I suspect the two are related, and also to the growth of administrators in post-secondary education.

  20. GDP per captia by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure that America is "the wealthiest nation on Earth", at least per capita, but it surely is the most conceited one.

    The US is definitely the wealthiest nation in total as measured by GDP. Per capita the US isn't at the top but it's in the top 20 and literally ALL of the nations ahead of it are either small to tiny countries (Ireland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Hong Kong, etc) or oil rich states like Kuwait or Norway.

    As for being conceited I'd tend to agree. I'm an American and a lot of my fellow citizens get a hard on by chanting "greatest country in the world" regardless of the objective merit of that statement.

    1. Re:GDP per captia by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The latest figures I've got show China's GDP ahead of the US's. Of course, comparing the GDPs of very different economies is partly a matter of interpretation.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Re:My wife has other complaints by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    slowing the whole classroom down in learning

    It was like this for me 30 years ago. I then transferred to a private school where there was zero tolerance for crap like that. Be disruptive and you could be expelled on the spot. Interestingly enough, no one was to my knowledge and our school was ranked one of the highest in the state despite being poor compared to neighboring schools with athletic fields, cafeterias, auditoriums and elective classes. All we got was English, mathematics and history and no AP classes.

  22. K-12 student loans WOW the GOP has no end! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    K-12 student loans WOW the GOP has no end!

  23. regulations? chapter 11 and 7 for student loans by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    regulations? chapter 11 and 7 for student loans will push the banks to make the schools fix it!

  24. Cuts? Not exactly true. by acoustix · · Score: 1

    It's not that the annual education budgets are being cut. I'm not aware of that being done anywhere. It's that the annual increases have decreased. There's a big difference there. I'm not saying I agree with the lower increases. I'm pointing out a fact that is not being presented in the media.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  25. Utah ranks #3 in education by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    https://www.usnews.com/news/be...
    and 50th in student spending (50th, last place).
    https://www.census.gov/newsroo...

    1. Re:Utah ranks #3 in education by Ayano · · Score: 1

      Utah is also sparsely populated and has a low cost of living. You want to paint that blueprint everywhere now?

      --
      I don't read AC
  26. Very high spending, low results by raymorris · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The US spends more on education than most developed countries, much more in many cases, and gets worse results. Over the last 20 years, we've thrown more money at schools and got worse results. More money isn't improving outcomes.

    Perhaps we should look at the countries that get better results and see what they are doing differently. They're spending less money than the US, not more.

    I haven't done a rigorous study, but I have noticed that our schools seem to spend a LOT of time (aka money) on non-academic things, things that are somewhat political like "Mexican heritage month". Kids in the US spend 180 days in school. When three or four months of that are spent on teaching diversity, tolerance, environmental awareness, etc, that's all time not spent on math, reading, science etc. That must have an impact.

    1. Re:Very high spending, low results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the most part the reason for "more spent, less results" is that a lot of that money is disappearing into the black profit hole of private education in the form of "incentives" and voucher systems. Meanwhile in poorer areas the heads of school districts are like mini Scott Pruitts, assigning themselves long trips in the Caribbean with money that should have been earmarked for finally getting science books that are not from the 70s.

      Things like diversity, tolerance and environmental awareness are mostly taught because they require no materials. There's no money for the science experiments, zero tolerance means they can't even go outside and pick up branches for ecology or art projects, math and critical thinking are "frowned upon" as being anti-religious, and systems like NCLB ensure that most of the time allotted to studying is wasted on rote memorization of specific things that will be on specific standardized tests, to the excessive detriment of children learning anything - should a school do badly in those as a result of trying to teach them, their budget will be slashed further.

      Special education's also cut severely over the years, which means the two autistic screecher in the class of 35 are disrupting everything all the time, and rapidly eroding over the years the teacher's ability to even fucking care.

    2. Re:Very high spending, low results by butchersong · · Score: 1

      For the life of me I cannot understand what material they need. We have 100+ years of education text books most of them are likely public domain by now. Why doesn't the state just self publish the damn books for $1 a piece? Why are we paying text book publishers? Has k-12 reading, writing and math really changed that much in that last 100 years? When I was a kid in rural kentucky we'd go to the fair every year and the library would sell donated books. I got awesome stuff from the early 1900s. Latin readers, geometry etc. Those books were heads and shoulders above the text books I had in school.

    3. Re:Very high spending, low results by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      Why doesn't the state just self publish the damn books for $1 a piece?

      Because a large percent of the population wants small governments. Adding a publishing house to state government is the opposite of that.

      Has k-12 reading, writing and math really changed that much in that last 100 years?

      Yes, yes it has. It has changed dramatically over that time. We also need to teach other subjects now. You might have heard of these newfangled computers, and this thing called the internet. 100 year old books are not sufficient to teach them.

      Why are we paying text book publishers?

      See previous answer.

      I got awesome stuff from the early 1900s. Latin readers, geometry etc.Those books were heads and shoulders above the text books I had in school.

      And I got awesome scifi and fantasy books, which were also head and shoulders above the text books I had in school. It doesn't mean that mine or yours were sufficient to replace the textbooks, since they were on different topics than what's being taught in school.

      Look, I hate the publishing industry, as it's anti-consumer, hostile, and insanely greedy. But to pretend that we can teach school out of even 30 year old books is ridiculous. You also don't seem to understand the scope of education. You can't purchase enough textbooks for a half million students at the thrift store. Education continuously evolves, generally for the better. If you're not familiar with the expectations we currently have for K-12 education, you might want to look into that. You're going to be very surprised about how different it is from what you remember in school.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re: Very high spending, low results by kenh · · Score: 1

      Too many kids are graduating illiterate, Baltimore has entire high schools where not one child is performing at grade level in either math or reading - not one in the entire school, but those teachers get the same salary and benefits as the teachers whose students perform at grade level.

      Since establishing a federal department of education, student achievement has stagnated while spending has exploded - aside from teachers having better retirement packages, what's improved?

      --
      Ken
    5. Re: Very high spending, low results by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Baltimore has entire high schools where not one child is performing at grade level...

      So what is Maryland doing about it? You do know that states largely control their education system, right? Other than a bunch of federal mandates required to get federal funding, states can do what they want.

      Since establishing a federal department of education, student achievement has stagnated while spending has exploded...

      That's an interesting assertion. Can you back that up with any facts?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    6. Re:Very high spending, low results by torkus · · Score: 2

      Well no...

      The US Taxes for education highly, but their functional spend (as in teacher pay + actual school supplies) is nowhere near the same $. Instead each town has it's own school board, staff, etc. which all need to get paid to justify their (frankly massively redundant and useless) jobs. Plus lots of other useless and overpaid work being done. Lots and LOTS of useless babysitting. Plenty of corruption and graft.

      If the amount paid went directly to educating students we wouldn't have problems and teachers could be the highly paid people they deserve to be.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    7. Re:Very high spending, low results by sjames · · Score: 2

      If you want to solve that problem, don't just look at the teachers and school supplies. The problem is at the administrative level.

    8. Re: Very high spending, low results by kenh · · Score: 1

      Yes. - this is a chart made famous in "Waiting for Superman" when the same documentary producer that filmed "An Inconvenient Truth" turned his critical eye on public education.

      I have no idea what Maryland is doing about it, but I can bet you their answer won't be to hold back seniors that can't read and write at grade level - they'll hand the poor children papers that say they are a high school graduate, but they won't be able to take that to a college without spending half their freshman year taking remedial classes trying to bring them up to the level their classmates are at who were able to go to schools where children earned their high school diplomas.

      --
      Ken
    9. Re: Very high spending, low results by kenh · · Score: 1
      --
      Ken
    10. Re: Very high spending, low results by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      That looks like pretty solid data. You tied the increase to teachers having better retirement packages, but that's definitely not the case. Teacher salaries have been flat or declining over most of that period, and pensions are generally tied to salary. If you look at pension data, it generally shows retired teachers getting paid pretty poorly. 65% of states have an average teacher pension under $25k/year.

      A more recent look at education costs pegged it at $122k/student, but that's not a ton lower than what you cited. If you dig into where the money is going, it looks like salaries are actually falling, while benefits are going up. That's no surprise - health insurance costs have skyrocketed in the last few decades. Another sink is infrastructure. Schools are continuing to chase technology, and computers and networking are both expensive and quick to depreciate.

      I don't disagree that it looks like school costs are rapidly going up without much to show for it. But does that mean that money is being spent ineffectively, has it kept kids from falling behind, or more likely, a mixture of the two?

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    11. Re: Very high spending, low results by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I'm unclear about what your argument is here. You've established that money doesn't seem to improve education, so spending that money on civic engagement for a day doesn't seem likely to change the lack of proficient students. And it's also not clear that the groups of students here are the same students, making the point even more moot.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re: Very high spending, low results by pchasco · · Score: 1

      If you want to know why children in other countries do better in school than in the USA, just look to the parents. If you can, that is, because theyâ(TM)re often nowhere to be seen. My wife is a teacher. She has paid for things for the classroom, which sucks, but it hasnâ(TM)t been a hardship on us because I am a developer and make more than enough for the both of us. The real issue is a âoerun school like a businessâ âoethe customer (parent) is always rightâ mentality from the district, and parents who are not involved in their childrenâ(TM)s education, or whose own lack of respect for education is actively being taught to their children.

    13. Re: Very high spending, low results by kenh · · Score: 1

      The school budget that used to fund teachers and 'instructional materials' are now diverted to teacher pensions and chasing technological fads.

      When I was in school, the entire school had 4 TVs, now every child needs their own device with a 10" or greater screen so they can download activity pages from websites.

      I do not buy the argument that teacher salaries are going down, and low pensions are a result of lower salaries before.

      If you want to counter that teacher salaries are going down, please be prepared to point to an actual district where teachers are making less this year than they did last year. I'm not interested in the effect increased school loan payments have on slower-increasing salaries.

      The district I taught in had starting salaries for first year teachers of $60K for a teacher with a BA. The salary for teachers with a PHd capped out at $100K, if you only had a BA the salary cap was $89K.

      Pensions are a fraction of final year's salary, so if $25K is 65% of final year's salary, that means they probably made about $40K. That's a wage some non-union districts pay. The vast majority of teachers are union members and do much better financially.

      --
      Ken
    14. Re: Very high spending, low results by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The district you taught in is not a very representative sample. Here is some data. In particular you can watch AZ's teacher salaries crest and then start going lower, ultimately ending back where they were in the 1970s. Several other states show the same pattern.

      I provided you a nice bunch of links. Feel free to peruse them. Your anecdotes do not seem to match reality. Pensions and salaries, in particular, seem to be opposite what you think they are.

      If you want to lay blame for increasing education costs, those aren't the places you can really lay it.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    15. Re:Very high spending, low results by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      That's a bunch of crap. More has been spent for decades prior to any vouchers becoming available. There's a huge amount of wasted money in our education system. I live in one of the best areas (Fairfax Co., VA) in my state. We have some of the highest property taxes to pay for top level public education. What I observed as my kid when through the system was that some of it was good, and some of it was shit, and that the teachers were, for the most part, just trying to do their jobs, but that they weren't given enough supplies in spite of some of the highest per student budget in the nation. Lots of money gets wasted on things that are no value added to actual education...my kid's elementary school office had beautiful wooden desks that I'm certain cost thousands of dollars each, and those were for the secretaries. Other countries provide much better education on lower cost per student basis. The problem isn't a lack of funds, but part of the problem is misdirected funds.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    16. Re:Very high spending, low results by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of when I daughter arrived for her freshman year of college, and we went to the book store to purchase what she required. The friggin' Calculus text was around $100. I guess Calculus must have changed over the years, so we have to get this brand new book. The college was actually pushing students to buy these...probably someone on the faculty was getting a kick back or knew the author.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  27. Good luck with that by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Or... you know... have GDP grow more than 2% year-over-year for a few years. That could never happen though...

    If that happens great but it's not something you can plan for because the government has ZERO means to ensure that happens. They can guess what the growth rate will be but they cannot force it to be higher than it is. Cutting taxes and regulations will not ensure it happens no matter what politicians promise you. And 2% growth on a GDP of $18.75 Trillion is REALLY hard to pull off in the face of some of the highest labor costs in the world. Good policy is to plan your budget for what is likely to happen and if it turns out better then we all benefit. Instead we have the current leaders trying to pretend that they can force the economy to grow at improbable rates to justify bogus budget assumptions and fund a ludicrously oversized military.

  28. Look at where the $$$ is going. by egyas · · Score: 1

    In the district I live in, over 50% of the annual budget for schools to to paying Teacher Pensions. The teacher's unions worked out a deal, years ago, that removed our teachers from the Social Security system, and instead put them in the state funded "Teacher's Retirement System". Combined w/ salary increases, steps, lanes, etc, "teacher costs" have been rising more and more every year. In fact, looking at my property tax bill for last year, 51.89% of my bill went directly to the local school district, which is higher than any year before. However, once you remove the cost of teacher's salaries and pension, the amount of $$$ spent per pupil is going own. Why? Simple.... When you have a set amount of $$$, and you are forced to spend more and more of it on a single line item, that leaves less and less for everything else. Since the local economy cannot afford endless tax increases (we already have a 5% effective annual increase), and the teacher's unions won't allow any decreases in pensions, salaries, insurance, etc, the only place to cut is supplies. Sad, but true. Now given the leftist bend here on Slashdot, I'll don my asbestos underwear and await the bashing that is sure to come. lol

  29. Re:So glad I do not live in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    lol people will spare no opportunity to take a big dump on the US

  30. Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How do you know they have enough of cash?

    Because this nice table convincingly shows, that the per-pupil spending in America's public schools has quadrupled since 1960ies (inflation-adjusted).

    There is amply enough money being spent. We are just doing it wrong [TM].

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the data.

      $13,373 per pupil in 2014

      $4000 per year in 2018 for my son in private school....much better experience...actually worth it.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by mi · · Score: 2, Informative

      $4000 per year in 2018 for my son in private school....much better experience...actually worth it.

      Unfortunately, the costs of the private school are not instead of, but in addition to the costs of public ones, for an American taxpayer.

      Hence the vouchers, which the teachers' unions fight tooth-and-claw in any way they can.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Or, education in the 1960's wasn't spending enough and sucked? Or maybe some costs went up faster than inflation? Maybe we have computer labs and AV clubs with greenscreens and other stuff? Certainly, since then, we've added special education (which has added a lot to the budget) and women's sports.

      "We're spending more money" isn't an argument.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by mi · · Score: 1

      Or, education in the 1960's wasn't spending enough and sucked?

      Not four times...

      Or maybe some costs went up faster than inflation?

      Four times faster?.. Don't be (quite so) ridiculous...

      Maybe we have computer labs and AV clubs with greenscreens

      70% of eight-graders can't be considered proficient in reading. If the monies go into the "computer labs", and not enough is left for reading proficiency, then we certainly are doing it wrong[TM]. Just as I said.

      "We're spending more money" isn't an argument.

      We are spending 4 times more money is an answer, when the question is, "how do you know there is enough cash?"

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your [emphasis mine] paying to insure a education floor. You can assume your customers and neighbors can read

      Nope, I can not. 70% of the 8th graders nationwide fail reading proficiency. Most also lack in other knowledge — like distinguishing between mass and weight, Ukraine and Russia, Conservatism and Fascism.

      That's a massive failure (or, worse, deliberate wrong-doing) of those same teachers, whose Unions are spending millions of dollars on the positive spin in mass-media and Slashdot.

      You would not continue ordering pizza from the same place, after they quadruple their prices without any improvements in quality. How can you expect me to continue buying education (for myself or my neighbors) in the same circumstances?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      See, you repeat "four times" a lot. But, since you don't address if the 1960's budget was adequate, what improvements in education have taken place, or if there are costs climbing higher than inflation, you're just talking about a delta. That's not useful by itself.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re: Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by mi · · Score: 1

      I personally think we are both doing it wrong and not spending enough money

      As long as the misspending continues, the entity responsible should be starved of money, not given more.

      This is true about any entity — be it your drug-abusing acquaintance, a corporation where you hold stock, or a government enterprise.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by mi · · Score: 1

      But, since you don't address if the 1960's budget was adequate

      I do address it, implicitly, by pointing out, that, even if it were inadequate, it could not possibly have been only 25% of what was necessary.

      or if there are costs climbing higher than inflation

      You can make this suggestion a little less ridiculous by pointing out something else, that became 4 times more expensive than it was in the 60ies. Anything else — anything, where the government was not involved either by providing the service or setting the prices.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I do address it, implicitly, by pointing out, that, even if it were inadequate, it could not possibly have been only 25% of what was necessary... You can make this suggestion a little less ridiculous by pointing out something else, that became 4 times more expensive than it was in the 60ies.

      See, this is your bullshit. You insist it had to be 25% of adequate and later that I identify things that have quadrupled in price. If each only doubled, that would get us to 4x. And, since there are other variables, each has to less than double.

      But, here's your bullshit answer to the 4x cost (after adjusting for inflation): Management salaries, real estate (esp. in areas that have a lot of kids), women's wages (look at the gender gap for teachers, esp. in the 60's), wheat prices, etc. A lot of things have increased more than 4x, even adjusting for inflation.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by mi · · Score: 1

      For someone dismissing another's argument as "bullshit" (twice!), you offer remarkably few citations. Zero in fact...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Per-pupil spending 4x times that of the 60ies by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      One reason is that we're leaving fewer children behind. There are many more programs for students with special needs now, and various mandates requiring schools to offer them. Educating children with special needs is far more costly than educating a non-special student.

      Another is transportation expenses. Our society has gotten nervous about allowing children to do anything unsupervised, including walking any distance, so a higher percentage of students are bused to school. That money isn't spent IN the school but it's still part of the budget for education.

  31. Conservative mantra... by BadTuna · · Score: 1

    Keep 'em scared and keep 'em stupid.

    --
    Your sig here!
  32. A few facts by kenh · · Score: 1

    Most states in US are 'republican', so it isn't surprising that republican states are over-represented in the survey - they are over-represented in the sample!

    In nearly all states, school funding is largely through local property taxes, more affluent communities pay nearly 100% of the cost of education (I recently lived in a district that was 94% self-funded, remaining 6% came from state and federal funds), less-affluent communities see the bulk of their school funding come from state and federal funds. In NJ, where I recently lived, they have Abbott districts that are simultaneously among the highest-funded districts in the state AND some of the lowest-performing districts in the state - increased funding doesn't always mean better schools/education - it can, but not always. Ask Cory Booker and Mark Zuckerberg how much education in Newark public schools improved when The Zuck gave Newark public schools $1BN.

    For as long as I have been alive, teachers strike for better pay, health and retirement benefits, and only recently have they struck for increased education funding. I applaud the effort, but it's too little too late. Having driven local property taxes to the point of unaffordability for many, they now want to increase property taxes to restore spending previously cut to meet teacher salary and benefits demands.

    In many (most?) states a single teacher salary after 5 years on the job is greater than the median wage level in the state - when teachers earn more than the people paying their salary, it takes a lot of guts to go on strike for higher wages.

    Finally, the elephant in the room is the education teachers are offering is declining, as evidenced by the staggering amount of college freshman that require remedial math and English classes. Sure, it's fun to point out that certain failing districts (like Baltimore, MD) have high schools where NO STUDENTS are performing at grade level in math and science - NONE - but that is the exception, not the rule. Too many high school graduates enter college unable to read and write/perform math at an acceptable level. (I'd love to see the high schools that graduated them be put on the hook to pay for those remedial classes, but that isn't likely.)

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:A few facts by unixcorn · · Score: 1

      Ken, you had me until you stated that "...the education teachers are offering is declining...". I wholeheartedly disagree with that. What is declining, in my opinion is parental support of their own children and their schools. Take any failing school and pick out one kid who is doing well and I'll show you a kid who's parents are involved and active in that kid's educational career. Too often do I see kids who are failing and his/her parents are blaming the school instead of looking at home. Kids under stress of hunger, drugs, incarcerated parents, etc. can't learn effectively. We forget, they are just kids and yet some of them are taking care of their parents at 10 years old. Until we take on that elephant, we won't improve our test scores.

    2. Re:A few facts by kenh · · Score: 1

      Parents, community, and teachers all contribute to the education of a child. The stresses todays kids face aren't that different than the ones their parents faced, poverty, hunger, drug addiction aren't new.

      Teachers (in my experience, and I worked in public education for 5 years in NJ, then taught for 6 montsh in TX in a charter school) today aren't like the teachers I had growing up (I worked 5 years in the district I grew up in) - Every teacher from 7th to 12th grade feels it is their responsibility to inject "current events" into their classroom, no matter the subject. While it's OK if one or two teachers in the school do it, when every teacher wants to "discuss" BLM, Gun Control, #METOO, et al, it takes away from the education process. In addition, taking out Practical Arts classes (Wood shop, metal shop, auto shop, etc.) forces kids that wouldn't have been on a college track into one, slowing down the process because they can't keep up - but, they are there because "everyone needs to go to college" (true story, in my district in central jersey we had 97% of graduating seniors going off to college, and a handful were going in various military branches - there were more than a few parents that argued the district had failed them because 100% of the seniors weren't going off to 4 year colleges!) Then we get to Learning Disabilities, I grew up with siblings that had learning disabilities, and their differences were managed outside the classroom one-on-one and in small groups. The current trend is to try and "mainstream" children with differences, again, dragging down the class average as the teacher and aide(s) try and steer the class though the material. It wasn't that long ago that programs like "No Child Left Behind" quickly morphed into "No Child Gets Ahead" when Honors, AP, and other "gifted and talented" classes were cut to bring up the lower-performing students.

      But, you bring up parenting, and I agree it is a major component, but many of todays parents are simply disconnected from their education, continuing the neglect and lack of concern about their children's education their parents showed them. When I taught at the charter school they had an interesting program - when a child was at risk for failing two or more classes, they were required to attend evening study halls with a parent until their grades improved to passing in all grades. The parents would get mad at the school for this policy, not their children for not doing their class/homework, but they were forced to put up with it because they chose the school, they agreed to the terms - the alternative was a public school that spent the bulk of the day trying to keep the children safe from each other.

      Teachers burnout, and tenure and unions keep them on the payroll, hurting student's chances of getting an education, and for that I hold them responsible - to the unions public schools exist to hire teachers, to parents schools serve a different purpose. What could the NYC public schools do if they didn't have hundreds of teachers collecting full salary & benefits, sitting idly in the so-called "rubber rooms" while their performance and offenses are slowly, meticulously debated by lawyers?

      --
      Ken
    3. Re:A few facts by unixcorn · · Score: 1

      Ken, based on your second post, we do agree. As someone closer to the classroom, you have a good point about current events. Constant bombardment from a polarized political system and the stress kids may feel when trying to reconcile some of that could be problematic. I left NJ when I was 10. We were closer to NYC in a bedroom community. Those schools were good. We moved to Florida where the teachers were fine but overcrowding was the norm which wasn't so good. It seems there is never one issue at the heart of learning. All kids and families are different and the worst performers, as you stated, are the ones in generational poverty. I'm not sure how to help them.

  33. Tough AnimeTiddies by jimmifett · · Score: 1

    Pay more than enough in taxes for shoddy education system. Fire some dead weight teachers.
    As for supplies, I'm not asking teachers to buy supplies. If they CHOOSE to buy student supplies, that's their own problem. I buy my kids their supplies, I'm not buying supplies for other kids. I got over that scam by 2nd grade when the supply list accidentally found my eyes instead of wife's.

    You know what would be better? If all the teachers of a given school estimated student paper usage, add 10%, and place a bulk discounted order to gain savings vs a teacher wasting their money at retail, or even us parents. Then, they could provide me with a portion of the bill and i'd be somewhat happier, bc in theory, I should be getting a better deal. Same with pencils. Right now I buy her monogrammed pencils so I know she is using them. If the school wants to arrange bulk discount, I'm all for that.

  34. Sort of... by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    While my state - Missouri - has been consistently lowering it's K-12 funding, local support in my community remains strong. Despite local support, however, is the staggering number of unfunded mandates both State and Federal governments foist upon our schools. A recent example is a new law our state crafted that requires all students be tested for dyslexia. That sounds amazing, right? However, nowhere in the legislation is any funding method spelled out. That means $2M, in our case, must be diverted from teacher raises, school books, etc. and used for this. There are literally hundreds of these unfunded mandates and some of them are simply ridiculous.

    As a school board member, I continue to be frustrated and angered in some cases over the ridiculousness that is our public schools. It's the greatest idea ever but politics will ruin it. There is no other way to say it.

  35. Lots of school funding myths out there by onyxruby · · Score: 2

    It's a myth that you can solve problems in education by just giving schools more money. It's not the amount of money that schools have, it's how they spend the money they have.

    Spending more money doesn't improve quality.
    https://www.americanexperiment...

    Schools actually spend more on minority students than white students
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog...

    The GAO has something to say:
    https://www.gao.gov/products/G...

    Even NPR came to the conclusion that simply adding more money doesn't neccasarily help:
    https://www.npr.org/sections/e...

    "Money alone does not guarantee success any more than a lack of it guarantees failure. Paul Reville, the former Massachusetts education secretary, says not all districts there were able to translate funding increases into academic gains. Often, the difference was how they spent the extra money."

  36. The Underground History of American Education by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    by John Taylor Gatto: https://archive.org/details/Th...

    From the summary:

    John Taylor Gatto is a former New York public schoolteacher who taught for thirty years and won multiple awards for his teaching. However, constant harassment by unhelpful administrations plus his own frustrations with what he came to realize were the inherent systemic deficiencies of our `public' schools led him to resign; he now is a school-choice activist who writes and speaks against our compulsory, government-run school system.

    THE UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION is a freewheeling investigation into the real - as opposed to the `official' - history of schooling, focused on the U.S. but with examinations of other historical examples for the purposes of comparing and contrasting, as well as for tracing where ideas and concepts related to education originated. You will discover things you were never told in the official version, things that will, at times, surprise, disgust, and scare you. You will also be introduced to the little-known historiography of the the darker side of the construction of compulsory government schooling.

    In the final analysis, Gatto believes that compulsory, government-run schooling is inherently destructive to true education, the cultivation of self-reliance, and indeed to individualism - which used to be a defining element of the American character. The true purpose of our public school system in reality has more to do with control than it does with learning. This does not mean that rank-and-file teachers, principals, and even superintendents believe they are making students dumber, more conformist, less self-reliant, less capable of genuine analytical, independent thought, and more easily controlled; most people involved in the system no doubt believe that they are trying their best to really teach their students. However, the system itself (which Gatto often characterizes as a complex web) ensures that its real purpose is served, despite the efforts of individual reformers within it - that true democracy is rendered unworkable even as the trappings of democracy are allegedly bolstered. Seen in this light, these institutions that produce barely literate, dependent, conformist, incomplete individuals full of emotional and psychological problems, who lack real knowledge (and whose capacity for acquiring such is deliberately weakened or eliminated), and who are just `educated' enough to pay their taxes and buy the latest products, are not, in fact, failing schools - on the contrary, if we are to believe Gatto's analysis, they are performing their designated function PERFECTLY. That purpose is to mold people in such a way as to make them more easily controlled by corporations and the state (a clear-cut example of how, contrary to popular myth, the interests of big business and those of big government more often than not coincide.)

    Though the organization of the book is somewhat haphazard, this book is compulsively readable to any critical thinker with an open mind to consider what's REALLY wrong with our school system (and, no, it's nothing so simple as a shortage of funds or a lack of `accountability' -- the real problems are deeper, philosophical, and systemic.) The book is absolutely riveting, and the country would be better off if more citizens read it and demanded real change to the system.

    Gatto's book deserves five stars because it dares to speak the truth.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  37. Get used to it by ahodgson · · Score: 1

    Schools and a wide array of other services will be cut to the bone to pay for Boomer's underfunded pensions.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-26/pension-crisis-worse-you-think

  38. Nope by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Just democrats running things into the ground. All those utopian cities run by Democrats like Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, Gary, etc etc. Truly inspirations for the rest of the country.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  39. All That Love by JimSadler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So now we must understand the unique expression of love for children by depriving them of an education, by the right wing. Isn't it odd that the right wing states that oppose abortion are also the states who offer the least for children? That means they want far more children born while they spend even lest to raise children properly. To keep it simple, right wing beliefs are severely irrational.

  40. Pity pity party by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Heck, many teachers are making $60k-$75K on a bachelor degree, excellent benefits, pensions, etc. Now the two biggest gripes publicized are pay/time worked, and supplies.

    1: SUPPLIES - First off, they're no different than many jobs. Supplies, how many in IT are on call. How many pay for hotspot access for it out of their own pocket.

    2: TRAINING - Oh, but teachers have to periodically go thru re-training. Hey, guess what...SO DOES EVERY CAREER if you want to stay employed. In fact, teachers less so than many depending on the career. History doesn't change much. Sure you need to take a few classes now and then to meet licensing requirements. But let's compare that to IT...

    In IT, the entire technology/language and platform is changing every several years. You are forced to continuously learn or fall behind. Sure, some luck out and get a job a they can coast on for the last 20 years of their career. But most have to spend a crap ton of time learning new tech. This also means purchasing a decent workstation for home/personal use upwards of a $1,000 or more depending on the task.

    3: OVERTIME - Oh but teachers work many more hours than paid for. Okay, let's be real. There are some teachers who do in fact spend many hours after school and outside of school grading and on lesson plans. Then there are the teachers who spend very little time doing those things. I have had the opportunity to live within two blocks of three different schools, in three different school districts. As such, I was ALWAYS around after school. Guess what... 80% of the teachers were gone 30 minutes after us kids were dismissed. A few stayed, there usually were the ones that were involved in after-school programs (most of which they get some pay bonus for). There were a handful that would still be there an hour or two later. As for grading, many used the same tests year after year. Some even had wisely written their tests as mostly multiple choice so they could grade them all in minutes.

    The truth is, that while some teachers develop much time to lessons, especially newer teachers. Many after a decade or so, are burned out and their effort is largely limited to the hours they are in the classroom.

    Now let's compare to IT again. Oh, an industry largely on salary, because for many, if the companies paid them overtime they'd earn nearly double. I think many in IT can testify of routinely have 50-60 hour work weeks, sometimes 70+.

    Oh, let's add in being on call. So this Friday, a server had issues, it resulted in me working a 12+ hour day. I was also on call this weekend. Which means one can be called into work at 3AM in the morning (dig that teach'). Well this Saturday an issue occurred with a deployment. Had to work from 9AM until 2PM - it was gorgeous out. Probably the 3rd sunny warm day of the year. By the time 3PM rolled around, it was rain. Joy. On-call is very common in IT. And often, the IT worker is on salary, which means you can work your entire weekend away and not even see a dime for it. And sadly, many companies PTO, time off policies suck so bad, you do not even get comp time.

    4: PAY - As I mentioned, most of the salaries I've seen for teachers are around $60K-$75K, administrators break the $100K barrier.

    Let's look at that pay. My high school started around 8AM, it ended at 2PM. 80% of teachers were only stayed about 30 minutes before and after - we're talking a 6-7 hour work week. Now, you factor in all the holidays, vacation time, etc. Then add in that you get around 1-2 months off in the summer. (And most school districts allow your pay to be broken down to cover those months not working.) So you pretty much get a crap ton of vacation time OR...you get to have a side business or summer job for extra cash. The amount of time off that teachers receive is significantly higher than that of other careers.

    So when you actually look at the salary of a public high school teacher and compare it to the actual hours many of them work, it is a very good rate of pay per hour.

  41. Not a cut in taxes, I bet by kenh · · Score: 1

    Schools in 39 of 50 states have seen decreases in funding for instructional materials for their students, according to data from the Urban Institute.

    Curious to note if there has been a corresponding drop in property taxes? I suspect not, instead teacher salaries to up and property taxes can't keep up with wage and benefit increases, so instructional material spending gets cut.

    The next time a teacher complains about their salary, compare their paycheck to the median income in your state - more often than not they are in the top-half of wage earners in the stae, meaning most taxpayers funding their school San less than them.

    --
    Ken
  42. !let's put their concern to the test by kenh · · Score: 1

    Let's offer striking teachers a deal - forgo next-year's pre negotiated raise and ask your district to direct the money that would have gone towards that raise and spend it on instructional material. I-mate not saying a pay cut, their 2018-2019 paychecks wi!l be the same as their 2017-2018 paychecks (except for their "peanuts" in tax cuts), and that $1-2K will be available for instructional materials every year into the futhre. Think your striking teachers would take that one-time freeze 'for the children'? No, they simply expect the parents to keep paying ever more one for their schools.

    --
    Ken
  43. Method to the madness by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The process of decomposing operations is important for higher math.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Method to the madness by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, by all means cover that in 2nd grade calculus.

    2. Re:Method to the madness by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Common core is 2nd grade calculus. That's the point.

      America has fallen behind the world in mathematics for four or five decades. If we keep teaching the same things in the same way we shouldn't expect different results. (isn't that the definition of insanity?)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    3. Re:Method to the madness by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's also madness to set the kids up for failure. How about the 2nd graders learn arithmetic WELL so they have a decent foundation to build on, rather than learning that they hate math and don't understand it, so they can keep hating math and not understanding it?

      We're not behind because the old objectives didn't set the bar high enough. We're behind because they've muddled things so much that the old objectives aren't being met.

      If you want the teacher to gently introduce the commutative and associative properties, they can do so easily enough without making the kids do simple arithmetic in such a kooky way that it looks like the stereotypical physics professor filling the board with equations just to add 2 single digit numbers.

  44. Re:My wife has other complaints by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    These days those schools have all the best teachers and lots of extra classes to choose from (D&D, Chemistry, Biology, advanced maths) and AP classes galore. We do not have the money of the public schools but the outcome and experience are much better. I spend about $4k per year...not including trips to Europe etc...

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  45. Re:So glad I do not live in the USA by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    ...and you will still be standing still getting raped by "refugees." Peachy.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  46. Re:The problem is money, spend more of it! by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    We already established that it is funded...though I have to agree, improperly. We are paying too much.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  47. Re:We need more facts than provided by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    "steady supply of less educated or impoverished to supply your military."

    Good point. Somehow this was lost from the debate.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  48. Contract With America by Chaset · · Score: 1

    That's why that "Contract With America" thing that the Republicans were touting a few years ago made me chuckle. The gist I got from their flyer was "We'll cut taxes and balance the budget by cutting waste, but oh no, we won't touch the elderly and our men in uniform.".

    The reasonable Republicans were probably shaking their heads. The dumb ones probably bought it hook, line and sinker.

    --
    -- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
  49. Ever look at a budget? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    In my county they publish it. Over 50% of the budget goes to the public schools. Varies a bit from year to year, however it seems to be somewhere between 53% and 60% If we could cut a lot of the union crap out of it, we'd be around 40% I bet. Maybe less than that. Teacher pensions, etc. I don't get a pension, nothing. Why do they get one? Some of the money I see them just throw away is hard to take.

    From coast to coast we need to re-evaluate our education system. Where money is going, etc. I bet we could do a whole lot with a lot less.

  50. China hasn't passed the US in GDP (yet) by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The latest figures I've got show China's GDP ahead of the US's

    Those figures are wrong. China's GDP GROWTH is ahead of the US but their total GDP is still only around 2/3 of the US (~11 trillion vs ~18 trillion) China is expected to pass the US in total GDP in a decade or two and given the 4:1 population difference that makes sense all other things held equal. India might pass the US someday too if they can ever get their act together.

    Of course, comparing the GDPs of very different economies is partly a matter of interpretation.

    Not nearly to the degree you seem to be implying. The data and methods used is reasonably clear and while pinning down an exact number is nigh impossible, getting a pretty close number with some reasonable error bars is positively routine and straight forward. Even for an economy like China's that isn't entirely transparent.

    1. Re:China hasn't passed the US in GDP (yet) by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Looking at Wikipedia, it would appear that there's two different definitions of GDP. China's significantly behind the US in nominal, based on official exchange rates, but ahead in purchasing power parity. My source was using PPP.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes