Skip to comments.
Myth: Schools don't have enough money
2006 John Stossel ^
| John Stossel
Posted on 01/18/2006 6:54:15 AM PST by Millee
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
To: Millee
My kid attends a Catholic School in a suburb of Cleveland. The price to educate a elementary student stands at about $4000.00 annually.
What in God's name are the public systems doing with the other $6K?
21
posted on
01/18/2006 7:15:03 AM PST
by
mr_hammer
(They have eyes, but do not see . . .)
To: Millee
"Stossel is an idiot..."
If they identify Stossel as an "idiot" then imagine what they'll do to your kid!
To: Millee
I watched the show, I thought it was very good. To me, he did not accuse anyone of anything but did point out some real points that all parents and tax payers should look at.
Such as much of the tax paid goes to items such as administrators salaries, administration buildings and the like. It does not make it directly into the classroom.
Another item pointed out was the teachers union (this was New York City) made it practically impossible to fire teachers when they were not performing to desired levels.
He let the actual area (state/city/school district) be know and didn't say generically this or that. He also profiled some private schools in the US and in Europe (Belgium, I think) and provided insight into how they work and perform (Administrators and teachers).
I've watched his shows over the years and think he does put a lot of time and research into them to put out the most and best information for viewers to think about.
This show was very interesting and timely considering the predicament were in in Texas. The problems pointed out in the show apply to Texas, maybe not all but some most definetly. Courts decreeing "fix it by June '06"; Legislature trying to appease their money backers during regular and Special Sessions; and the Governor nor forcefully leading the Legislature to the table to solve the problem.
23
posted on
01/18/2006 7:19:25 AM PST
by
K-oneTexas
(I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
To: Millee
Education in this country, both at the secondary and post-secondary levels is undergoing a massive renovation. We're just on the forefront of it. But IMO in 20 years the "views" on college educations will be much different and most people will not be attending traditional public schools as they are now in existence.
At some point what people actually know is going to trump some checked box on a resume. That's already beginning to occur. The technological field actually leads in this area, but business and other areas are soon to follow. Engineering, medical, and other sciences will still require traditional educational outlets, but much if not most or nearly all of those curriculae actually are relevant to the final outcome.
In undergraduate school, one can get a business degree with as few as 10 (or 40 or so) courses actually having any direct meaning or purpose to one's professional aspirations. Reading, writing, and math can be self taught and more and more people are doing just that due to the incredibly low, and faltering, standards of the public schools. More and more people are spending money on tutoring or the like as well.
Most of the classes taken in undergraduate school for non-technical majors are just fluff BS. Most of it is spun so liberally that it's nauseating.
Once the ridiculous structure we have that equates a degree with knowledge, intelligence, or expertise is "adjusted," more room for people that don't have the credentials but have the common sense and knowledge will open up giving way to a new framework within this realm. I.e., just like techies can get "certifications" or other qualifications via testing, IMO so too will others be able to do the same.
Also, not saying it's gonna be any less expensive to pursue necessarily, but the general framework will have to change.
24
posted on
01/18/2006 7:22:36 AM PST
by
Fruitbat
To: SoftballMominVA
"Stossel made a right ass of himself by ignoring this fact and comparing our kids one-on-one to Belgian children."
Stossel was not comparing children one-on-one. He was comparing systems. Go suck the NEA tit if you feel his piece was full of distortion.
For the record Stossel was explaining the concept of COMPETITION, something you status quo educrats fail to understand.
Give your straw man argument of "autistic children" the choice in which school would do better with the money. Did you even watch the show?
25
posted on
01/18/2006 7:23:06 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
To: Millee
The biggest problem right now with public schools--and I think even most teachers admit this sheepishly--is the fact the
administrative cost of public schools is getting way out of hand!
![](http://webpages.charter.net/connectingzone/disagree/18.gif)
Find ways to cut that administrative cost and direct more money specifically to classrooms and textbooks and I'll almost guarantee public schools will get better over time.
To: Millee
Tenure is one of the most harmful ingredients in public education.
A good teacher does not need tenure.
27
posted on
01/18/2006 7:28:39 AM PST
by
alisasny
(<h3>"Watching Ted Kennedy is a nonintellectual feast."</h3>)
To: Brilliant
Some do not have a choice, but most do. I am sympathetic with single mother's. There a lot of scholarships out there to private schools, or one could always homeschool.
A person might think that they are not suited to homechool, but look at the alternative. I would starve to death before I would let one of my grandchildren go to a government school. I am not putting down anyone just to make it clear on the front end.
28
posted on
01/18/2006 7:29:35 AM PST
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: Millee
In California, the schools receive 50% of the entire state budget. They are still hungry for money. I remember a few years ago attending a PTA meeting hearing sadly that California ranked 49 out of 50 of the states in order of quality of education. More $$$'s does not necessarilly mean more quality.
To: Mulch
It's also true that rural public school districts often have less spending per student than urban districts...but take a guess which ones have better test scores and higher graduation rates?
30
posted on
01/18/2006 7:31:03 AM PST
by
RockinRight
("It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc" - Coulter)
To: SoftballMominVA
For the difference between public and parochial, 25% of the children would need to be autistic or palsied. What we have instead is manufactured and enhanced "LD's" such as ADD, ADHD, etc.
This is how they get to the amount of money they spend..that plus the incredible number of administrators and attorneys they employ.
31
posted on
01/18/2006 7:31:37 AM PST
by
steve8714
(Burn Peugeot, burn.)
To: SoftballMominVA
Is Belgium immune from CP and autism?
32
posted on
01/18/2006 7:32:29 AM PST
by
steve8714
(Burn Peugeot, burn.)
To: Millee
For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.
Amen, go tell it on the mountain!
33
posted on
01/18/2006 7:32:47 AM PST
by
AD from SpringBay
(We have the government we allow and deserve.)
To: NRA1995
Strange how the clowns who run the school systems build these fantastic temples of learning full of greenhouses, planetaria, and the like, yet the graduates can barely spell "dog" or "cat" or make change on their summer jobs at Subway
but, they do know how to put a condom on a banana. Here's hoping the really know where to put, and it may bring an end to the cycle of stupidity!
34
posted on
01/18/2006 7:34:33 AM PST
by
SAMS
(Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate; Army Wife & Marine Mom)
To: Millee
Even most Republicans would agree with the following statement: "Schools in America are underfunded."
Point is, it's not going to change.
We're just going to keep throwing more and more money at teh schools, because that's what Government does.
Government fails on purpose, so it can justify ever increasing budgets and bureaucracy.
35
posted on
01/18/2006 7:35:59 AM PST
by
Sometimes A River
(The problem with Neo-Cons is that they are for unlimited Third World Immigration.)
To: Millee
Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that's $250,000 per classroom. This doesn't include capital costs. Couldn't you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you'd hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money. Put it in other terms. For a high school of 1000 students, that would be about $10,000,000 or about $200,000 per "educator" in the school. So where does the money go? If teachers get on the average salaries of about $50,000 a year, and of medical benefits abour $10,000 a year, and even if we add in defered retirement benefits of about $25,000 a year, how DO we get to $200,000 per person?
36
posted on
01/18/2006 7:38:06 AM PST
by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: Millee
The teacher's Union has a lien on Fort Knox.
To: NRA1995
Actual education is not the goal of most public school educators.
Their desire is to produce graduates who are Tolerant Environmentally Aware Socialists.
38
posted on
01/18/2006 7:39:41 AM PST
by
Sometimes A River
(The problem with Neo-Cons is that they are for unlimited Third World Immigration.)
To: Millee
Of course it takes that much money per kid. After all, they have to pay the $100,000 pension to a former superintendent and his wife for the last 12 years or so it the city we used to live in. Not counting the retirement for all their friends who they got high paying positions for the last few years of employment so they could enjoy that benefit, too.
39
posted on
01/18/2006 7:41:18 AM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: steve8714; SoftballMominVA
I have been to Belgium before and sadly, yes they do have children with autism.
Children with autism are labeled under the category of minors with speech or personality disorders.
Might have changed though but still under Belgium's system they don't throw them into the streets.
40
posted on
01/18/2006 7:41:54 AM PST
by
rollo tomasi
(Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson