Is Public School Education Under-funded?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The time that parents spend with their kids WHILE THEY'RE AWAKE is around 5 to 6 hours per day. The rest of the time it's sleepy time. Teachers spend at least 7 hours with the kids. So yes, my statement is correct.

Parents:
365 days * 5.5 hours per day = 2007.5 Hours

Teachers
180 Days * (7 - .5 lunch hour) = 1170 Hours


>>>>

You are assuming they have ONE teacher. Bad assumption for any middle of high school students and many elementary students.

I made no such assumption. Westwall said "teachers" and I said "teachers" both of us using the plural, not singular.


>>>>

So you admit you were wrong? That is a funny way of saying it. My students have 7 teachers a day MINIMUM.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Underfunded?

Hard to say

If you keep classroom sizes 20-25 you are probably adequately funded
30 and above and you are underfunded

25 or 30 is not that big a difference.

Actually it's a very big difference (at least in a core classroom).

Not really.

It's much easier to teach a class of 25 students than it is a class of 30. That's 5 less students you have to worry about DIing for, 5 less kids likely to be troublemakers (which in some schools is rampant), and in classrooms it opens up your room so much and allows for more types of instructional methods and tools.

Could you imagine dealing with 30 snot-nosed, entitled, arrogant, hormone filled teenagers? It's not easy, I assure you of that.

I personally can handle 30 students on a discipline level, my rapport and respect in my classrooms are incredibly high. However many of my students need specific one-on-one attention following the instruction objectives, and honestly introducing an extra 5 kids takes away from everybody's education in the classroom. My concern isn't how easy my job is--it's how much the students will absorb from my class.

My best class academically has 18 students. My worst class academically has 27 students. Coincidence?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I simply look at the amount of kids going to private school in my area who go on to college. That number is over 95% and more to the point they go right into a 4 year college and usually with loads of scholarships. Further, the graduation rate is above 90% as well. They perform an order of magnitude better than the public schools in all areas save athletics. For less money spent per student.

Key, is they do it for less money per student.
Teachers are over payed.
They get 3 months vacation. Retire early. It's time they competed for their jobs like everyone else does.

No...teachers do not get 3 months vacation.

Do too.

I'm contracted for 199 work days...180 instructional 19 planning.

I do NOT get paid for summers.

I used to attend roughly 4 weeks of mandatory training over the summer (that I paid for out of my paychecks later in the year).

Teachers in my district start out at $38K/year.

We have to act as teachers, role-models, are held to a higher standard than the rest of the general public, and sometimes even have to play parent to the students (a scary amount of parents ask ME what THEY should do with their problem children)...unfortunately I can't say "how about you be a parent instead of a friend and teach your kid how to spoon-feed themselves).

I get paid 27k a year and I work 360. I wish I got a teachers salary. The point is you don't even work the entire year.

Do you have a teacher's certification and a Master's degree?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The time that parents spend with their kids WHILE THEY'RE AWAKE is around 5 to 6 hours per day. The rest of the time it's sleepy time. Teachers spend at least 7 hours with the kids. So yes, my statement is correct.

Parents:
365 days * 5.5 hours per day = 2007.5 Hours

Teachers
180 Days * (7 - .5 lunch hour) = 1170 Hours


>>>>

You are assuming they have ONE teacher. Bad assumption for any middle of high school students and many elementary students.

I made no such assumption. Westwall said "teachers" and I said "teachers" both of us using the plural, not singular.


>>>>

So you admit you were wrong? That is a funny way of saying it. My students have 7 teachers a day MINIMUM.

No I didn't "admit I was wrong". You said I made an incorrect assumption that they have only ONE teacher.

Re-read the post you commented on, I referred to "teachers" which is the plural form of "teacher". Teacher refers a singular entity, teachers refers to a plural grouping.


No need to be argumentative, please try to understand what was written.


>>>>

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Sure

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-choice-vouchers.aspx

Did you pay attention to this part of your link?

"though some gains have been found among low income and minority students who receive vouchers.

Other research has found voucher recipients are more likely to graduate from higher school than their public school counterparts"

Now why do you suppose that might be?

Because vouchers add competition to the equation so the schools are forced to improve. ECON 101.

And who decides the school has improved and what evidence is required to prove the school has improved?

The students performance and continued education at a institute of higher education for one. Public schools are failing the kids and have been for decades. When I went to high school I got the chem book for the Los Angeles Unified School district published in 1927. I used that book all through college. I compared it to a college chem book just a few years ago and it was significantly better than the current college text....which tells me that the high school books are even worse.

Our children are being dumbed down to levels unheard of in the developed world.

I went to high school in the 1970s and then on to college in the 80s. Chemistry changed completely between the two periods. Your claims about the textbook is ludicrous because the scientific advances in chemistry made that textbook 100% obsolete.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Parents:
365 days * 5.5 hours per day = 2007.5 Hours

Teachers
180 Days * (7 - .5 lunch hour) = 1170 Hours


>>>>

You are assuming they have ONE teacher. Bad assumption for any middle of high school students and many elementary students.

I made no such assumption. Westwall said "teachers" and I said "teachers" both of us using the plural, not singular.


>>>>

So you admit you were wrong? That is a funny way of saying it. My students have 7 teachers a day MINIMUM.

No I didn't "admit I was wrong". You said I made an incorrect assumption that they have only ONE teacher.

Re-read the post you commented on, I referred to "teachers" which is the plural form of "teacher". Teacher refers a singular entity, teachers refers to a plural grouping.


No need to be argumentative, please try to understand what was written.


>>>>

Your post is incorrect. THAT is the point. Couching your response based on someone else's error is dishonest, is it not?

No my post was not incorrect. The post you responded to said that students are in school 180 days per year, if the average school day is 7 hours (minus 1/2 hour for lunch) then the student spends about 6.5 hours per day in the presence of teachers. 6.5 * 180 = 1170 hours per year in the presence of teachers.

No where does that make any assumption that they are in the presence of the SAME teacher for 6.5 per day all 180 days.

Quite trying to be argumentative about a claim you made about a post that I made where what you said was incorrect about what you thought I assumed.


>>>>

 

[Unkotare]

Underfunded?

Hard to say

If you keep classroom sizes 20-25 you are probably adequately funded
30 and above and you are underfunded

25 or 30 is not that big a difference.

Actually it's a very big difference (at least in a core classroom).

Not really.

It's much easier to teach a class of 25 students than it is a class of 30. That's 5 less students you have to worry about DIing for, 5 less kids likely to be troublemakers (which in some schools is rampant), and in classrooms it opens up your room so much and allows for more types of instructional methods and tools.

Could you imagine dealing with 30 snot-nosed, entitled, arrogant, hormone filled teenagers? It's not easy, I assure you of that.

I personally can handle 30 students on a discipline level, my rapport and respect in my classrooms are incredibly high. However many of my students need specific one-on-one attention following the instruction objectives, and honestly introducing an extra 5 kids takes away from everybody's education in the classroom. My concern isn't how easy my job is--it's how much the students will absorb from my class.

My best class academically has 18 students. My worst class academically has 27 students. Coincidence?

Could be many, many reasons for that, of course.

 

[Unkotare]

The time that parents spend with their kids WHILE THEY'RE AWAKE is around 5 to 6 hours per day. The rest of the time it's sleepy time. Teachers spend at least 7 hours with the kids. So yes, my statement is correct.

Parents:
365 days * 5.5 hours per day = 2007.5 Hours

Teachers
180 Days * (7 - .5 lunch hour) = 1170 Hours


>>>>

You are assuming they have ONE teacher. Bad assumption for any middle of high school students and many elementary students.

I made no such assumption. Westwall said "teachers" and I said "teachers" both of us using the plural, not singular.


>>>>

So you admit you were wrong? That is a funny way of saying it. My students have 7 teachers a day MINIMUM.

That depends on what scheduling the school uses.

 

[westwall]

Did you pay attention to this part of your link?

"though some gains have been found among low income and minority students who receive vouchers.

Other research has found voucher recipients are more likely to graduate from higher school than their public school counterparts"

Now why do you suppose that might be?

Because vouchers add competition to the equation so the schools are forced to improve. ECON 101.

And who decides the school has improved and what evidence is required to prove the school has improved?

The students performance and continued education at a institute of higher education for one. Public schools are failing the kids and have been for decades. When I went to high school I got the chem book for the Los Angeles Unified School district published in 1927. I used that book all through college. I compared it to a college chem book just a few years ago and it was significantly better than the current college text....which tells me that the high school books are even worse.

Our children are being dumbed down to levels unheard of in the developed world.

I went to high school in the 1970s and then on to college in the 80s. Chemistry changed completely between the two periods. Your claims about the textbook is ludicrous because the scientific advances in chemistry made that textbook 100% obsolete.

Care to bet? All of the math from the 1927 book carries over. ALL of it. The only book I have from today that is as complete is the CRC.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

25 or 30 is not that big a difference.

Actually it's a very big difference (at least in a core classroom).

Not really.

It's much easier to teach a class of 25 students than it is a class of 30. That's 5 less students you have to worry about DIing for, 5 less kids likely to be troublemakers (which in some schools is rampant), and in classrooms it opens up your room so much and allows for more types of instructional methods and tools.

Could you imagine dealing with 30 snot-nosed, entitled, arrogant, hormone filled teenagers? It's not easy, I assure you of that.

I personally can handle 30 students on a discipline level, my rapport and respect in my classrooms are incredibly high. However many of my students need specific one-on-one attention following the instruction objectives, and honestly introducing an extra 5 kids takes away from everybody's education in the classroom. My concern isn't how easy my job is--it's how much the students will absorb from my class.

My best class academically has 18 students. My worst class academically has 27 students. Coincidence?

Could be many, many reasons for that, of course.

No. That is the reason. Almost 19 years in the classroom tells me that is the problem.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Now why do you suppose that might be?

Because vouchers add competition to the equation so the schools are forced to improve. ECON 101.

And who decides the school has improved and what evidence is required to prove the school has improved?

The students performance and continued education at a institute of higher education for one. Public schools are failing the kids and have been for decades. When I went to high school I got the chem book for the Los Angeles Unified School district published in 1927. I used that book all through college. I compared it to a college chem book just a few years ago and it was significantly better than the current college text....which tells me that the high school books are even worse.

Our children are being dumbed down to levels unheard of in the developed world.

I went to high school in the 1970s and then on to college in the 80s. Chemistry changed completely between the two periods. Your claims about the textbook is ludicrous because the scientific advances in chemistry made that textbook 100% obsolete.

Care to bet? All of the math from the 1927 book carries over. ALL of it. The only book I have from today that is as complete is the CRC.

I would take that bet as math is not the topic!

The term orbital to describe molecular theory did not even happen until after that book was published. You might as well be using Hammarabi's Code in a modern courtroom.

I'm sorry, but you apparently know nothing about chemistry.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

While every state and every school district is different, I think my own state of Pennsylvania may be representative of the status quo, at least among the northern states. We spend upwards of $20k per year on every student, K-12, which is more than three times what was spent in 1960, even adjusted for inflation.

"Test scores" (however that is defined) have not improved; in fact, they have deteriorated by some measures. More kids go from 12th grade in public schools to college, but colleges have gone from a training ground for the elite to a dumping ground for anyone who wants to delay adulthood for a couple years and can scrounge up the money to do it. (Our astronomical student debt proves that point).

The culture has not helped educational outcomes. In fact, it fosters an attitude that is not conducive to hard work, studying, seeking out knowledge, or assuming responsibility for one's own success or the lack of it. In our schools, failure is excused and mediocrity is hailed as outstanding. Whole classes of students graduate with GPA's of 3-point-something, which means without any doubt that the grading system is phony - implemented to make the students feel good and the teachers feel like they have accomplished something.

Schools have gone from places where kids were taught "the Three R's" to institutions that provide sex education, political indoctrination, substance abuse counseling, breakfast and lunch, babysitting services, and extracurricular activities that are so extensive that they take the primary focus totally away from education for many of the "students."

Teacher compensation has gone from subsistence level (in the 60's) to be better than 90% of other degreed "professionals" in the Real World, when you consider salary, benefits, vacation, and early retirement. It has gone from a "vocation" involving sacrifice for the betterment of society, to a "dream job" that attracts thousands more applications every year than the system can even process (in the better school districts).

And yet, Democrat politicians continue to hammer at the theme that public education is not adequately funded, and that's why the "results" are do disappointing. Here in Pennsylvania, our Governor has staked his entire Governorship on a demand that the Republican legislature hit our natural gas industry with a heavy new tax, and give that money to the education establishment. We have gone 4 months without a state budget as a result of his drawing this line in the sand.

Having worked for 8 years in the public sector and since 1975 in the private sector, I have seen two diametrically opposed approaches to a perceived shortage of funding. In the private sector, Management eliminates headcount, cuts expenses, and demands that everyone remaining "do more with less." Six months later, we wonder what the gone people did for a living, because we've gotten along without them. In the Public Sector, the only conceivable reaction to a perceived shortage of funding (which is the state of existence basically ALL THE TIME), is a demand for more funding.

Is public education underfunded, or is it just a giant hole in the budget that absorbs everything thrown into it, and keeps demanding more? It should be obvious what I think.

As with Defense, Education's over-funded. And because we try throwing money at problems hoping they'll go away, instead of fixing problems with what money they have, they've realized if they deliberately avoid fixing problems they'll have more money thrown at them to fix it.

 

[Unkotare]

Actually it's a very big difference (at least in a core classroom).

Not really.

It's much easier to teach a class of 25 students than it is a class of 30. That's 5 less students you have to worry about DIing for, 5 less kids likely to be troublemakers (which in some schools is rampant), and in classrooms it opens up your room so much and allows for more types of instructional methods and tools.

Could you imagine dealing with 30 snot-nosed, entitled, arrogant, hormone filled teenagers? It's not easy, I assure you of that.

I personally can handle 30 students on a discipline level, my rapport and respect in my classrooms are incredibly high. However many of my students need specific one-on-one attention following the instruction objectives, and honestly introducing an extra 5 kids takes away from everybody's education in the classroom. My concern isn't how easy my job is--it's how much the students will absorb from my class.

My best class academically has 18 students. My worst class academically has 27 students. Coincidence?

Could be many, many reasons for that, of course.

No. That is the reason. Almost 19 years in the classroom tells me that is the problem.

And almost 22 years tells me things are more complicated than that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Not really.

It's much easier to teach a class of 25 students than it is a class of 30. That's 5 less students you have to worry about DIing for, 5 less kids likely to be troublemakers (which in some schools is rampant), and in classrooms it opens up your room so much and allows for more types of instructional methods and tools.

Could you imagine dealing with 30 snot-nosed, entitled, arrogant, hormone filled teenagers? It's not easy, I assure you of that.

I personally can handle 30 students on a discipline level, my rapport and respect in my classrooms are incredibly high. However many of my students need specific one-on-one attention following the instruction objectives, and honestly introducing an extra 5 kids takes away from everybody's education in the classroom. My concern isn't how easy my job is--it's how much the students will absorb from my class.

My best class academically has 18 students. My worst class academically has 27 students. Coincidence?

Could be many, many reasons for that, of course.

No. That is the reason. Almost 19 years in the classroom tells me that is the problem.

And almost 22 years tells me things are more complicated than that.

I beg to differ simply because I do not have the time to give the students more individual attention which they often need. Perhaps you don't teach the way I do.

 

[Slyhunter]

Care to give us a percentage of private schools with a mandate to educate every school-aged kid in the district?

The advantage of the private school is that it can shuffle all those test scores around much easier than public schools. Might read Diane Ravitch to see all the tricks that private schools use to raise test scores on paper but not in reality.





Here in Nevada, if the ACLU loses their lawsuit, the average student will be able to find out. Nevada enacted the most comprehensive school voucher program in the USA and that will make it possible for people to enjoy the benefits of a private school.

I simply look at the amount of kids going to private school in my area who go on to college. That number is over 95% and more to the point they go right into a 4 year college and usually with loads of scholarships. Further, the graduation rate is above 90% as well. They perform an order of magnitude better than the public schools in all areas save athletics. For less money spent per student.

Key, is they do it for less money per student.
Teachers are over payed.
They get 3 months vacation. Retire early. It's time they competed for their jobs like everyone else does.

Three months vacations? Are you truly THAT ignorant? You don't get paid in the summer! What kind of vacation is that?

Last year we finished the first week of June. We went back the first of August with a week long training (unpaid) in July.

You made over 40k for that year. I made 27k. Maybe I should become a teacher. They get paid more.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The advantage of the private school is that it can shuffle all those test scores around much easier than public schools. Might read Diane Ravitch to see all the tricks that private schools use to raise test scores on paper but not in reality.





Here in Nevada, if the ACLU loses their lawsuit, the average student will be able to find out. Nevada enacted the most comprehensive school voucher program in the USA and that will make it possible for people to enjoy the benefits of a private school.

I simply look at the amount of kids going to private school in my area who go on to college. That number is over 95% and more to the point they go right into a 4 year college and usually with loads of scholarships. Further, the graduation rate is above 90% as well. They perform an order of magnitude better than the public schools in all areas save athletics. For less money spent per student.

Key, is they do it for less money per student.
Teachers are over payed.
They get 3 months vacation. Retire early. It's time they competed for their jobs like everyone else does.

Three months vacations? Are you truly THAT ignorant? You don't get paid in the summer! What kind of vacation is that?

Last year we finished the first week of June. We went back the first of August with a week long training (unpaid) in July.

You made over 40k for that year. I made 27k. Maybe I should become a teacher. They get paid more.

What makes you think you would start at $40,000?

 

[regent]

Do the better schools in the same district get more funds or are the funds disbursed equally per student in the district?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do the better schools in the same district get more funds or are the funds disbursed equally per student in the district?

Depends on what you mean by "Funds" (as in dollars).

Funds are normally divided into Capital, Operations and Maintenance, Personnel, Textbooks and Supplies, etc...

A school bus is a capital investment along with the cost of building a building. Those would be directly related to the number of students being served. Operations and Maintenance are based on the building and not the number of students. We have school buildings that are 30 years old typically their operations and maintenance costs re higher since they need more maintenance and aren't as energy efficient as our newest school that opened about 3-years ago. Personnel costs are proportional to the number of students since if you have more students in the building then you need more people which costs more money. Individual personal cost are then a function of experience; an individual teacher with 20 years of experience get's paid more than a new teacher with 1 year of experience. Teachers are paid mostly on a "Step" system with steps relating to years of experience and may have "lanes" for different education levels for example Bachelors, Masters, Certificate of Advanced Study (Master + 30Hours), and Doctorate. Non-teaching staff may then be on a separate "Grade" system which has a minimum and maximum ranged based on the required qualifications for the job and an individuals compensation determined by experience in that capacity. For example a School Nurse might be, as an example, a Grade 10 with a compensation range of $14.50 - $25.65 per hour. The individuals pay is then based on experience in that job.

Then in top of that, you have grants that a school may apply for and if they win it that money can be used for specific purposes. For example Title I grants used for schools supporting poor and impoverished neighborhoods that try to increase the teaching staff (lowering the student teacher ration) to attempt to improve the performance of the school.

Finally you have Special Education students who, on average, consume inordinately high "funds" expenditures because the school must support medical handicaps, they my have to provide student support staff to be with the student all day, and/or special education teachers. It costs much more for a special education student, so they increase the "average student cost".


>>>>

 

[regent]

Do the better schools in the same district get more funds or are the funds disbursed equally per student in the district?

Depends on what you mean by "Funds" (as in dollars).

Funds are normally divided into Capital, Operations and Maintenance, Personnel, Textbooks and Supplies, etc...

A school bus is a capital investment along with the cost of building a building. Those would be directly related to the number of students being served. Operations and Maintenance are based on the building and not the number of students. We have school buildings that are 30 years old typically their operations and maintenance costs re higher since they need more maintenance and aren't as energy efficient as our newest school that opened about 3-years ago. Personnel costs are proportional to the number of students since if you have more students in the building then you need more people which costs more money. Individual personal cost are then a function of experience; an individual teacher with 20 years of experience get's paid more than a new teacher with 1 year of experience. Teachers are paid mostly on a "Step" system with steps relating to years of experience and may have "lanes" for different education levels for example Bachelors, Masters, Certificate of Advanced Study (Master + 30Hours), and Doctorate. Non-teaching staff may then be on a separate "Grade" system which has a minimum and maximum ranged based on the required qualifications for the job and an individuals compensation determined by experience in that capacity. For example a School Nurse might be, as an example, a Grade 10 with a compensation range of $14.50 - $25.65 per hour. The individuals pay is then based on experience in that job.

Then in top of that, you have grants that a school may apply for and if they win it that money can be used for specific purposes. For example Title I grants used for schools supporting poor and impoverished neighborhoods that try to increase the teaching staff (lowering the student teacher ration) to attempt to improve the performance of the school.

Finally you have Special Education students who, on average, consume inordinately high "funds" expenditures because the school must support medical handicaps, they my have to provide student support staff to be with the student all day, and/or special education teachers. It costs much more for a special education student, so they increase the "average student cost".


>>>>

So do some districts spend more money on the more able students than on the less able?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do the better schools in the same district get more funds or are the funds disbursed equally per student in the district?

Depends on what you mean by "Funds" (as in dollars).

Funds are normally divided into Capital, Operations and Maintenance, Personnel, Textbooks and Supplies, etc...

A school bus is a capital investment along with the cost of building a building. Those would be directly related to the number of students being served. Operations and Maintenance are based on the building and not the number of students. We have school buildings that are 30 years old typically their operations and maintenance costs re higher since they need more maintenance and aren't as energy efficient as our newest school that opened about 3-years ago. Personnel costs are proportional to the number of students since if you have more students in the building then you need more people which costs more money. Individual personal cost are then a function of experience; an individual teacher with 20 years of experience get's paid more than a new teacher with 1 year of experience. Teachers are paid mostly on a "Step" system with steps relating to years of experience and may have "lanes" for different education levels for example Bachelors, Masters, Certificate of Advanced Study (Master + 30Hours), and Doctorate. Non-teaching staff may then be on a separate "Grade" system which has a minimum and maximum ranged based on the required qualifications for the job and an individuals compensation determined by experience in that capacity. For example a School Nurse might be, as an example, a Grade 10 with a compensation range of $14.50 - $25.65 per hour. The individuals pay is then based on experience in that job.

Then in top of that, you have grants that a school may apply for and if they win it that money can be used for specific purposes. For example Title I grants used for schools supporting poor and impoverished neighborhoods that try to increase the teaching staff (lowering the student teacher ration) to attempt to improve the performance of the school.

Finally you have Special Education students who, on average, consume inordinately high "funds" expenditures because the school must support medical handicaps, they my have to provide student support staff to be with the student all day, and/or special education teachers. It costs much more for a special education student, so they increase the "average student cost".


>>>>

So do some districts spend more money on the more able students than on the less able?

Please clarify your question?

Do you mean, for example, take two classrooms in a High School teaching math. One of "regular" students and one of "more able" students. You have a regular math class of 25 students taught by a teacher with 5-years experience and a Masters degree in Math earning $45,700 per year. The other class is "more able" students taking an AP Math course taught by a teacher with 5-years experience and a Masters degree in Math earning $45,700 per year.

Then the answer is no.

Now, in that same school there is a "Math Club" and "more able" students participate in that club. In this hypothetical High School there are 6 Math Teachers teaching 6 periods a day that is 36 classes of math. Six of which are "AP" level courses. Of those 150 students 75 join the "Math Club". The teacher draws a stipend of $1,000 over the year to sponsor the club which meets after schools and attends weekend events. That increases the cost for those students by $13.33 per year. Since the "more able" students self-select by participating in the club and the teacher is drawing an extra stipend then that changes the math (pun intended) so in that case there is a slight cost increase ($13.33) changing the answer to "yes".

**************************************

On the other hand take two schools and a Grade one class. One is in a regular neighborhood and there are 25 students per class and there are 4 grade one classes. Each teacher has a Bachelors degree and has 5 years experience being paid $42,800 (that is a cost of $171,200 total or $1,712 per student as a function of teacher salary).

Now if there is a school is in a poor neighborhood, Title I funding (Federal grant money dedicated to that issue) might pay for an additional teacher. So now you have 5 teachers and a class size of 20 for the same 100 students. At $42,800 per teacher, then that totals $214,000 or $2,140 per student.

In that case the answer could be yes.



There are many variables and simplistic statements about expenditures per student are often misleading.


>>>>