Most and least educated states in the U.S.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Money is obviously important but from the article, "Repeated increases in school funding in recent years have not slowed calls for more money".
To me this is the exact reason why our education doesn't change and improve. We stick with the status quo, ask for money and when then that doesn't work continue to ask for more money. Rinse, wash and repeat.

The issue isn't so much the amount of money but its distribution, eh? Most school districts are very top-heavy on management and that's where a lot of educational dollars are flowing. In addition, wealthier locales obviously have better tax bases and therefore better funding for the local school districts. Shouldn't those districts receive less state funding so that more than be channeled to the lower-income areas where buildings are falling apart, textbooks are years out of date, and enrichment and early childhood programs are scarce?

(R)s' answer is to use taxpayer $$ for unaccredited religious and charter schools, thus robbing public schools of viability.

 

[Flash]

Money is obviously important but from the article, "Repeated increases in school funding in recent years have not slowed calls for more money".

To me this is the exact reason why our education doesn't change and improve. We stick with the status quo, ask for money and when then that doesn't work continue to ask for more money. Rinse, wash and repeat.

When schools or police departments want more money they run stories about the increased crime or poor exam performance.

 

[Flash]

The issue isn't so much the amount of money but its distribution, eh? Most school districts are very top-heavy on management and that's where a lot of educational dollars are flowing. In addition, wealthier locales obviously have better tax bases and therefore better funding for the local school districts. Shouldn't those districts receive less state funding so that more than be channeled to the lower-income areas where buildings are falling apart, textbooks are years out of date, and enrichment and early childhood programs are scarce?

(R)s' answer is to use taxpayer $$ for unaccredited religious and charter schools, thus robbing public schools of viability.

In many states funding is related to the local property wealth and those schools receive less state funds because they are expected to use more local funding. In Texas some schools receive almost no state funds and even have to give some of their money to poorer districts. And poor/wealthy have everything to do with industry rather than large homes or a high income population. Some districts near me have relatively poor student populations but are funded almost entirely by industry property taxes.

 

[Micawber]

The issue isn't so much the amount of money but its distribution, eh? Most school districts are very top-heavy on management and that's where a lot of educational dollars are flowing. In addition, wealthier locales obviously have better tax bases and therefore better funding for the local school districts. Shouldn't those districts receive less state funding so that more than be channeled to the lower-income areas where buildings are falling apart, textbooks are years out of date, and enrichment and early childhood programs are scarce?

(R)s' answer is to use taxpayer $$ for unaccredited religious and charter schools, thus robbing public schools of viability.

and people of middle means move to the burbs to raise families and have safe good schools for their children, and the R answer to school massacres
is a gun solution to a gun problem, but I digress.

Just another reason why the burbs are now owned by the Ds, in addition to the urban, which was already theirs. The Rs only have Rural empty land.

We are going to crush in November. Crush it totally.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

In many states funding is related to the local property wealth and those schools receive less state funds because they are expected to use more local funding. In Texas some schools receive almost no state funds and even have to give some of their money to poorer districts. And poor/wealthy have everything to do with industry rather than large homes or a high income population. Some districts near me have relatively poor student populations but are funded almost entirely by industry property taxes.

Lack of industry/business in a particular locale is definitely a huge factor in school funding.

 

[Flash]

All politicians spend our money. We as voters have the duty to ponder what we want it spent on, then vote for the candidates most likely to follow our priorities. Education is not a priority for (R)s. Sure, they scream loudly when forced to admit that America's kids are falling behind other countries' students in the education realm. But their answer is to impose more testing ("No Child Left Behind") while doing nothing to make actual effective changes.

I agree. Both Democrats and Republicans come up with ways to funnel more federal money for schools although much of it does not go for the real needs. It also is one cause for the increased administration costs because of compliance with federal regulations.

When I taught secondary school Congress made money available for audio-visual equipment so naturally schools applied for it. We had large storerooms full of equipment that very few teachers used. We didn't have enough money for paper, but we could have all the expensive equipment we wanted. When I taught college it was computers. I could have a new computer but still didn't have enough money for copy paper.

 

[cawacko]

The issue isn't so much the amount of money but its distribution, eh? Most school districts are very top-heavy on management and that's where a lot of educational dollars are flowing. In addition, wealthier locales obviously have better tax bases and therefore better funding for the local school districts. Shouldn't those districts receive less state funding so that more than be channeled to the lower-income areas where buildings are falling apart, textbooks are years out of date, and enrichment and early childhood programs are scarce?

(R)s' answer is to use taxpayer $$ for unaccredited religious and charter schools, thus robbing public schools of viability.

I'll admit, I'm not familiar with how each state allocates its education funding. Is your argument Democratic dominated states distribute educational funds better than Republican dominated states? Is there any evidence or data to support it?

Is there any evidence showing Republican dominated states allocate their money to unaccredited religious schools? And there are a number of Democrats who support charter schools. Candidate Obama ran as a supporter of charter schools. You can look at Democratic dominated cities and see the number of charter schools.

And if we really want to get into allocation of resources look at the number of administrators in the school districts around the country. They are a huge reason why we allocate more money yet still hear stories of teachers buying supplies. Do Republican school districts support more administrators and Democratic districts/states don't?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

And if we really want to get into allocation of resources look at the number of administrators in the school districts around the country. They are a huge reason why we allocate more money yet still hear stories of teachers buying supplies. Do Republican school districts support more administrators and Democratic districts/states don't?

I believe that I mentioned that many (most) school districts are top-heavy on administrative staff.

As for allocating public funds to religious and non-public schools, we only have to look at Louisiana. We have two sets of family members with children who live there. One lives near Baton Rouge and his kids attend the highest-rated public school district in the state. (Well, it's one kid now since my g-son graduated and is now attending university.) The other family lives SW of NOLA and has their son enrolled in a Christian school for which they receive vouchers. Unfortunately he has moderate learning disabilities that this school is not equipped to work with, so they are paying for tutoring.

"Charter schools in Louisiana are public schools operated independently of public school systems, either by nonprofit or for-profit organizations. Although they are largely publicly funded, charter schools are exempt from many of the requirements imposed by state and local boards of education regarding hiring and curriculum. " (https://ballotpedia.org/Charter_schools_in_Louisiana)

 

[cawacko]

I believe that I mentioned that many (most) school districts are top-heavy on administrative staff.

As for allocating public funds to religious and non-public schools, we only have to look at Louisiana. We have two sets of family members with children who live there. One lives near Baton Rouge and his kids attend the highest-rated public school district in the state. (Well, it's one kid now since my g-son graduated and is now attending university.) The other family lives SW of NOLA and has their son enrolled in a Christian school for which they receive vouchers. Unfortunately he has moderate learning disabilities that this school is not equipped to work with, so they are paying for tutoring.

"Charter schools in Louisiana are public schools operated independently of public school systems, either by nonprofit or for-profit organizations. Although they are largely publicly funded, charter schools are exempt from many of the requirements imposed by state and local boards of education regarding hiring and curriculum. " (https://ballotpedia.org/Charter_schools_in_Louisiana)

The beauty of charter schools is they allow more freedom in their curriculum and for their teachers and aren't suffocated by the bureaucracy. Not all kids learn the same yet that's essentially what we argue when we fight for the traditional one size fits all top down model.

Charter schools aren't a panacea for all the ills of the education system. Since you bring up Louisiana New Orleans went to an all charter school model I believe. Sounds like they've had some good results although there are still issues.

 

[Walt]

When I taught college it was computers. I could have a new computer but still didn't have enough money for copy paper.

What sort of college did you teach at? This is not an insult, but I have never heard of a college that does not have enough money for copy paper. Colleges around here have more than enough money. Are we talking about some sort of underfunded community college?

Both Democrats and Republicans come up with ways to funnel more federal money for schools although much of it does not go for the real needs.

Almost all primary and secondary school money comes from either local taxes, or state reallocated local taxes. Almost nothing comes from the federal government.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Now that is some funny shit!

 

[Walt]

The beauty of charter schools is they allow more freedom in their curriculum and for their teachers and aren't suffocated by the bureaucracy.

That was the hope. What it has ended up as is really good charter schools are better than the average, but average charter schools are worse than the average. Think about it. The average school is the product of a long history of working out what is best. If you get a genius to redesign it, it could be better. If you get someone average, it will be worse than that long history. And they usually cost a lot more to get those worse results.

They were supposed to allow teachers have a greater voice, but instead they usually do not. Teachers end up with suffocating managers sitting in on their classes. Teachers are easily fired for even making polite suggestions.

Again, the best charter schools perform above average, but the average charter school is well below average. In America, every year a student spends in charter school, they will lose on average a month of education compared to not being in a charter school.

And then there is a question about the best charter schools. If you take the best students, and mix them with the richest students, you can make a pretty good school. The parents of the richest students will take away money from other schools to make sure their charter school is the best funded. The best students will bring up the standards for the whole school, by pushing down the standards for the other schools. The best teachers will flee the other schools for the charter school. Yes, the best charter school will be great, but only at the cost of the other schools.

 

[cawacko]

That was the hope. What it has ended up as is really good charter schools are better than the average, but average charter schools are worse than the average. Think about it. The average school is the product of a long history of working out what is best. If you get a genius to redesign it, it could be better. If you get someone average, it will be worse than that long history. And they usually cost a lot more to get those worse results.

They were supposed to allow teachers have a greater voice, but instead they usually do not. Teachers end up with suffocating managers sitting in on their classes. Teachers are easily fired for even making polite suggestions.

Again, the best charter schools perform above average, but the average charter school is well below average. In America, every year a student spends in charter school, they will lose on average a month of education compared to not being in a charter school.

And then there is a question about the best charter schools. If you take the best students, and mix them with the richest students, you can make a pretty good school. The parents of the richest students will take away money from other schools to make sure their charter school is the best funded. The best students will bring up the standards for the whole school, by pushing down the standards for the other schools. The best teachers will flee the other schools for the charter school. Yes, the best charter school will be great, but only at the cost of the other schools.

In what cities/areas are the best schools charter schools that rich parents send their children to charter schools over public schools?

 

[Walt]

In what cities/areas are the best schools charter schools that rich parents send their children to charter schools over public schools?

Well, NYC has some very good charter schools, and rich parents send their children to them.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

What sort of college did you teach at? This is not an insult, but I have never heard of a college that does not have enough money for copy paper. Colleges around here have more than enough money. Are we talking about some sort of underfunded community college?
Almost all primary and secondary school money comes from either local taxes, or state reallocated local taxes. Almost nothing comes from the federal government.

Mr. Owl taught computer science programming classes at a local community college in the early- to mid-2000s. Some students had laptops to bring but they weren't as prevalent as now. The college refused to hold the classes in the computer lab where everyone had access to a device. Now how on Earth can you learn Java and other languages w/o using a computer?

 

[Flash]

What sort of college did you teach at? This is not an insult, but I have never heard of a college that does not have enough money for copy paper. Colleges around here have more than enough money. Are we talking about some sort of underfunded community college?

We had enough paper, but we had to budget it. That was partly because once the library was full of computers students would print out all their materials (including textbooks) on the printers.

I was really comparing stuff like paper to capital items that have dedicated funding and is more generous.

Almost all primary and secondary school money comes from either local taxes, or state reallocated local taxes. Almost nothing comes from the federal government.

True, only about 6% is federal. That is why cutting back on federal educational funding does not "cripple" schools as many claim. A lot is special education funding where federal regulations require extensive plans for each special ed student. Small districts that do not have special facilities autism or other special problems may have to pay to send that student to a special school at a high cost.

 

[cawacko]

Well, NYC has some very good charter schools, and rich parents send their children to them.

Clearly the exception, not the rule. I can tell you in the Bay Area there no charter schools rich parents send their kids too because if you're rich you go private or the public schools in your rich area are good. And I'd venture to guess its that way across the country.

 

[Flash]

Clearly the exception, not the rule. I can tell you in the Bay Area there no charter schools rich parents send their kids too because if you're rich you go private or the public schools in your rich area are good. And I'd venture to guess its that way across the country.

If a person can get money from the state certain qualified, concerned individuals will start their own good charter schools. Many more will start fly-by-night schools appealing to those who want easy grades with no work. Many of those go under with little accounting for the funds.

 

[Walt]

Clearly the exception, not the rule. I can tell you in the Bay Area there no charter schools rich parents send their kids too because if you're rich you go private or the public schools in your rich area are good. And I'd venture to guess its that way across the country.

I agree. Average charter schools are below average, so most charter schools are places that rich parents would flee from. The best charter schools are bizarre exceptions.

But the best charter schools also do harm.

 

[cawacko]

I agree. Average charter schools are below average, so most charter schools are places that rich parents would flee from. The best charter schools are bizarre exceptions.

But the best charter schools also do harm.

Charter schools tend to be in poorer neighborhoods. There is a demand for them there because of the poor or failing public schools. If you move to a rich area with a good public school there's far less demand for charter schools.