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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[candygirl]

Originally Posted by Registered_Democrat

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]

Originally Posted by Registered_Democrat

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]

Originally Posted by Rightwing Nutjob

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]

Originally Posted by Rightwing Nutjob

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.

[Conservative Libertarian]

Originally Posted by Registered_Democrat

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.

Are they being properly educated now with the present public school system? If they were, this discussion probably wouldn't be occuring.

[Rightwing Nutjob]

Originally Posted by Registered_Democrat

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.

I am not responsible for the "nation as a whole." Theoretically, military action in Iraq and elsewhere (this is not a justification of the Iraq war -- that remains arguable) is in defense or protection of our rights. That military force is a government-citizen responsibility is another discussion but pertinent and I'm more than willing to have it. It is far different from education which does nothing to preserve or protect my natural rights.

To address the first part of your statement, where is the "best interest of the nation as a whole" part of my responsibilities? Is it written in the Constitution, the Declaration? You seem to be telling me that my interests and my rights are second to the needs of the nation. If this is true,it connects to quite a bit more. For example, the conservative arguments that gay marriage is detrimental to the family and the nation gain legs. The rights of gay men to marry are, like all rights, subordinate to the needs of the nation (or state).

Your assumption that the bottom 25 percent would not be educated is also just that, an assumption, and I should think a wrong assumption. My folks were there in that category while I was in school. They paid and worked extra to send me to a private school, which was inexpensive in comparison to public education.

[Susanna]

Before there was a public school system, communities still often hired a school teacher - and her class room was often the church.

[Sir_WilliamXI]

Originally Posted by Susanna

Before there was a public school system, communities still often hired a school teacher - and her class room was often the church.

Don’t tell that to the libs, they might go into convulsions.... Wait; on second thought...

[Dreamer]

I read a pretty ridiculous article recently about kids who are getting paid by the hour to study. What is this world coming to....

[Fantasy Chaser]

Originally Posted by Registered_Democrat

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.

First of all, most of those bottom-25% aren't doing that badly. Second, homeschooling has been mentioned. Third, the arguement could be made that public education is an oxymoron. Fourth, the Feds have their unconstitutional finger in the pie. Fifth, unlike education, foreign policy is the prerogative of the federal government.

Originally Posted by Conservative Libertarian

Are they being properly educated now with the present public school system? If they were, this discussion probably wouldn't be occuring.

No s---!

[candygirl]

I will say that the Department of Education should be abolished and hand over complete control of the schools back over to the states.

[Registered_Democrat]

Originally Posted by Fantasy Chaser

First of all, most of those bottom-25% aren't doing that badly. Second, homeschooling has been mentioned. Third, the arguement could be made that public education is an oxymoron. Fourth, the Feds have their unconstitutional finger in the pie. Fifth, unlike education, foreign policy is the prerogative of the federal government.

No s---!

I would not be opposed to education controlled completely by the states. You wouldn't catch me in a state that didn't have public education, though. I doubt that any state would adopt such measures anyway.

And as for homeschooling, let's assume that many of the people who would be homeschooling in a system without public education would be doing so because they could not afford school. It is also likely that the reason they are not making as money is because they are less educated. So now they have to work 2 jobs (assuming 2 parents) and then educate their children in their "spare time." And they might have just scraped by and gotten through high school, yet they are somehow supposed to prepare their children for college?

It would lead to a huge gap in knowledge, and children would be the ones to pay the price. The system as it is may not be perfect, but knowledge and education are things which are fundamental to modern society and the human experience, they should be available to everyone.

[Fantasy Chaser]

Originally Posted by Registered_Democrat

I would not be opposed to education controlled completely by the states. You wouldn't catch me in a state that didn't have public education, though. I doubt that any state would adopt such measures anyway.

And as for homeschooling, let's assume that many of the people who would be homeschooling in a system without public education would be doing so because they could not afford school. It is also likely that the reason they are not making as money is because they are less educated. So now they have to work 2 jobs (assuming 2 parents) and then educate their children in their "spare time." And they might have just scraped by and gotten through high school, yet they are somehow supposed to prepare their children for college?

It would lead to a huge gap in knowledge, and children would be the ones to pay the price. The system as it is may not be perfect, but knowledge and education are things which are fundamental to modern society and the human experience, they should be available to everyone.

1. Abraham Lincoln was born dirt poor, and had little formal education. His mother taught him to read under circumstances in which people had to do real work, and Lincoln's own hunger to learn took care of the rest.
2. I do not believe that in most (if any) cases both parents would need to be working full time. And a lot can be accomplished with study and self-reliance substituting for some of the instruction. If they're too lazy to put forth the effort, then their parents ought to motivate them better.
3. Ed Heinmann, who designed a number of successful Douglas (later McDonnell-Douglas) attack planes for the Navy (including the outstanding A-4 Skyhawk) never went to college.
4. The system as it is is going to pot. The public schools are educating less and less, and indoctrinating (often against the will of the parents) more and more.
5. The opportunity for education should be there for those willing to work for it. Not just put it on the taxpayers' backs so that incompetent or agenda-driven skunks can get tenure and not get fired for things that no one would last ten seconds in most any other kind of job.

[Susanna]

I can't see the 2nd page on this thread.

Edit: this is weird, I changed the # posts per page, so that there is only one page. But before that, it showed 18 posts, but the last 2 were 21 & 22. When the extraneous posts were removed, the posts weren't renumbered, and it seemed to confuse the system. There were fewer than 20 posts, (I was using 20 posts/page), but the post count seemed to indicate that there should be 2 pages, and it didn't display any post higher than the #20.