Is throwing money at schools really the solution?

[samspade]

I saw once again in my local paper that an administrator is getting $625 a day for 120 days just for training.

Every once awhile I see a story of some school administrator getting big bucks for doing nothing or minimal work.

We always hear stories how schools need more money for teachers and building or maintaining schools.

But is it true?

In my area we have one that wanted to build a new school because they claimed they were going to get several hundred more students the next year so they wanted more money.

You have to realize that this school asks for more money every year and they have stories like I told above about huge salaries given for doing nothing.

Well after all said and done the school added twelve class rooms to the existing school which btw was the number of new students they increased by.

What should we do about schools who do this?

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Those school officials can only guess about their needs, costs and so forth. If they're wrong, they face no consequences. When businesses guess wrong, they go out of business (except when government steps in with a tax-funded bailout).

What should be done? Abolish publicly funded education.

[Crimson_Pride]

I went to high school at a private school. It was relatively cheap and unlike what you might think of as a typical private school. I know for a fact that the facilities we had were the worst in our county by far and the worst of any school I have ever seen in our state.

The teachers were not paid as much as their public school counterparts in the area and not given many benefits either. The school was owned by a couple who had been running it for nearly 30 years. I truly believed I received one of the best educations in our region and it had everything to do with a Christian based environment, the curriculum, and the adherence to traditional values in the school.

Obviously bricks, a new coat of paint, and high paid administrators didn't help our school out.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

I can relate. Our building certainly wasn't state of the art, but it was clean and heated. It did its job without a bunch of money. Mom and Dad paid a fortune in taxes over the years to fund public education and its shrines to government excess while scrapping and clawing to pay the much lower cost of sending me to a private school from first through 12th grade.

[Registered_Democrat]

Those school officials can only guess about their needs, costs and so forth. If they're wrong, they face no consequences. When businesses guess wrong, they go out of business (except when government steps in with a tax-funded bailout).

What should be done? Abolish publicly funded education.

How will poor children be educated? That idea would lead to a level of social inequality and injustice which is disgusting.

[candygirl]

How will poor children be educated? That idea would lead to a level of social inequality and injustice which is disgusting.

How about a voucher system where poor and middle class children can get out of these bad public schools?

[Susanna]

How are they being educated now? When they teach them just about everything irrelevant instead of the 3-R's. And what's to stop them from being home-schooled? And there are libraries even in the sparsest populated areas.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

How will poor children be educated? That idea would lead to a level of social inequality and injustice which is disgusting.

Your social justice requires one man to work for another regardless of his willingness to do so; and it's done using coercive force. The needs of a poor child or a poor family do not, by cries of social justice and equality, place a responsibility on me to educate your poor child. Just because some family squeezes out some child doesn't obligate me to care for their child.

To suggest that the need of poor children chains me to their education is disgusting. Care to explain why I am responsible for the education of poor children?

On the other hand, there would be plenty of opportunities for interested poor families to educate their children in a free market system through charity, work programs and other as yet unformed and innovative. Even the statement you make, if true, doesn't neutralize my argument. If you had low-income public education available and let the free market handle the rest, you'd still have a more moral and better system than we have today.

[Fantasy Chaser]

Your social justice requires one man to work for another regardless of his willingness to do so; and it's done using coercive force. The needs of a poor child or a poor family do not, by cries of social justice and equality, place a responsibility on me to educate your poor child. Just because some family squeezes out some child doesn't obligate me to care for their child.

To suggest that the need of poor children chains me to their education is disgusting. Care to explain why I am responsible for the education of poor children?

On the other hand, there would be plenty of opportunities for interested poor families to educate their children in a free market system through charity, work programs and other as yet unformed and innovative. Even the statement you make, if true, doesn't neutralize my argument. If you had low-income public education available and let the free market handle the rest, you'd still have a more moral and better system than we have today.

[Registered_Democrat]

Your social justice requires one man to work for another regardless of his willingness to do so; and it's done using coercive force. The needs of a poor child or a poor family do not, by cries of social justice and equality, place a responsibility on me to educate your poor child. Just because some family squeezes out some child doesn't obligate me to care for their child.

To suggest that the need of poor children chains me to their education is disgusting. Care to explain why I am responsible for the education of poor children?

On the other hand, there would be plenty of opportunities for interested poor families to educate their children in a free market system through charity, work programs and other as yet unformed and innovative. Even the statement you make, if true, doesn't neutralize my argument. If you had low-income public education available and let the free market handle the rest, you'd still have a more moral and better system than we have today.

Because it is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The bottom, say, 25% of children (in terms of income) not being educated would be absolutely devastating to this country. Not to mention, I personally find the abolishment of public education to be morally repugnant.

And this is all taken care of at the state level, so it would end up being each state's decision.

I guess you're responsible for the education of poor children for the same reason the right says you are responsible for providing Iraq with a police force. It is good for the country.