Why Is The Solution To School Problems Always "more money"

[Dayton3]

Ever since that "Nation At Risk" report came out a quarter of century ago, it seems the solution by everyone involved has been to "increase eductation spending".

Why?

After a quarter of a century of things getting no better or worse, one would think that maybe it was time to try something knew, like less spending or different policies.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yeah, fewer books, cheaper equipment and fewer teachers who get paid less are going to turn around problems with education for the better. Good thinking.

 

[RoJoHen]

Every time they throw more money at education, they completely rework the education system. They change standards. They change teaching methods. My mom has been teaching full-time for about 8 years, and she's had to completely change the way she does things every couple years because of this.

More money for education is always a good thing, but it needs to be put in the right places.

 

[Rii]

Because it's easily quantifiable.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Ever since that "Nation At Risk" report came out a quarter of century ago, it seems the solution by everyone involved has been to "increase eductation spending".

Why?

After a quarter of a century of things getting no better or worse, one would think that maybe it was time to try something knew, like less spending or different policies.

So, using less spending, what's your solution? Bearing in mind that new policies frequently require retraining, new materials, etc.

 

[Dayton3]

Ever since that "Nation At Risk" report came out a quarter of century ago, it seems the solution by everyone involved has been to "increase eductation spending".

Why?

After a quarter of a century of things getting no better or worse, one would think that maybe it was time to try something knew, like less spending or different policies.

So, using less spending, what's your solution? Bearing in mind that new policies frequently require retraining, new materials, etc.

Eliminate all federal spending and let the states do what they want is my preference.

 

[Hermiod]

^That's not an answer. How is less money and therefore less books, less equipment, and teachers leaving to go in to other, better paid, professions going to improve education ?

 

[John Picard]

Yeah, fewer books, cheaper equipment and fewer teachers who get paid less are going to turn around problems with education for the better. Good thinking.

Let's see. I've lived in the State of Oklahoma for 16 years and have observed many "fixes" to education that would funnel more money to the schools.

1. Horse racing tracks - FAILED
2. Liquor by the drink - FAILED
3. Increasing taxes on vehicle tags - FAILED
4. Raising property taxes - FAILED
5. Establishing a lottery - FAILED

Oklahoma has 77 counties, and every county is comprised of school districts. Why does a state with population of approximately 3.6 million people need 77 separate districts? Then, we can get into how, in some of the poorer counties (median income of $23,000), the fat cat administrators are earning salaries of well over $100,000 PLUS a car PLUS their housing. If you think that's not a problem, then your view of reality is greatly screwed.

Explain why Catholic schools in New York City can spend half of what the public schools spend, per student, and yield better results. Throwing money at a problem won't solve it. If that were true, the people wouldn't be complaining about "overpaid corporation CEOs". Yet every year, the school teachers bitch that they want more money, and the school superintendent screams for more money, yet the schools complain they cannot meet the most basic needs of the students -- clean facilities, plenty of classrooms, working HVAC systems, PAPER, etc.

Start cutting the fat: administrative staff, administrators, and put the people in charge who should be, which is the school principles. They know what needs to be done in their area.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Ever since that "Nation At Risk" report came out a quarter of century ago, it seems the solution by everyone involved has been to "increase eductation spending".

Why?

After a quarter of a century of things getting no better or worse, one would think that maybe it was time to try something knew, like less spending or different policies.

So, using less spending, what's your solution? Bearing in mind that new policies frequently require retraining, new materials, etc.

Eliminate all federal spending and let the states do what they want is my preference.

So you've got nothing but vague platitudes that don't address the issue of improving education through less spending then? Color me shocked.

Oh, by the way, Arkansas has a pretty sweet deal going on with its return on federal taxes, you sure you want to eliminate that?

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)​

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)​

Link

 

[Terengo]

Explain why Catholic schools in New York City can spend half of what the public schools spend, per student, and yield better results.

If the public schools could cherry-pick their students, they'd perform really well, too. But they have to take every student who shows up at the door, no matter what baggage they bring with them in terms of learning disabilities, behavior problems, language difficulties, dysfunctional families, etc., all of which require expensive and numerous programs to cope with. If the Catholic schools had to provide the whole range of remedial service that public schools do, their "better results" would melt away real fast.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

Ever since that "Nation At Risk" report came out a quarter of century ago, it seems the solution by everyone involved has been to "increase eductation spending".

Why?

After a quarter of a century of things getting no better or worse, one would think that maybe it was time to try something knew, like less spending or different policies.

So, using less spending, what's your solution? Bearing in mind that new policies frequently require retraining, new materials, etc.

Eliminate all federal spending and let the states do what they want is my preference.

That's got to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Explain why Catholic schools in New York City can spend half of what the public schools spend, per student, and yield better results.

One reason is that the parents have to self-select into the school and choose to pay the premium for the education. They're paying for public and private school at the same time.

Another reason is that the parents are typically more involved in the school and support the educational goals.

We have a neighbor who moved from the public school district to a local Catholic school and she said sometimes she wished the parents would leave her alone for a little bit. In the public school she only had parent interaction wehn something was wrong and she had to initiate it. Now, she's got more parent involvement than she knows what to do with.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Start cutting the fat: administrative staff, administrators, and put the people in charge who should be, which is the school principles. They know what needs to be done in their area.

And which one of these problems gets solved by cutting education budgets across the board?

 

[USS Triumphant]

Regarding the OP, it is in part because we spend a truly disgustingly small perportion of money on something that should be in our top five national priorities (behind national defense, agriculture, housing, and health care). And we do need more money in education. It just all seems to get pissed away in the wrong things. We need money for new buildings, money to give teachers and administrators a salary that isn't an insult, money for new books and libraries. Money for good field trips that actually take students to see their state capital and state museum and not just up the road to a petting zoo or some crap. Money for art and music classes, and for athletics programs. Money to make classes into hands-on labs, and not just rote memorization and regurgitation. Money to provide well-balanced, nutritious breakfast and lunch programs. Money for after-school programs, and for academic clubs. Money for sharp-looking school uniforms (my opinion, but one I feel has strong merit).

And the most important thing: money for a working, monitored program to insure real performance from the people responsible for the rest of that.

What we don't need that we spend too much money on now: Teachers that have seniority and thus get paid a lot even though they've never been worth a shit and have just floated through the years. Teachers who consistently have poor performance or parent/student complaints (judged valid by competent administration), regardless of seniority. Parties for students to reward them for a particular behavior (usually good sales in the fundraisers) that involve renting a bunch of expensive junk for use on a single day. Athletic programs that get money in favor of academia. And, being a computer tech, my biggest pet peeve - every computer in every classroom upgraded to brand new equipment almost every year, when none of the teachers knew what the hell they were doing with the old stuff (which will now be practically given away, usually to faculty, with little or no recovery of funds for the school), and won't know what to do with the new stuff, either!

Oh, one more thing: Fundraisers. Fundraisers should come back, get real, and get a little more cutthroat, like they were when I was young. This mamby-pamby "sell 5 things and get a toy" crap is just plain dumb. They aren't really supposed to have to be a way for the school to raise money, they're supposed to be an educational experience for the kids.

 

[Plecostomus]

Explain why Catholic schools in New York City can spend half of what the public schools spend, per student, and yield better results. Throwing money at a problem won't solve it. If that were true, the people wouldn't be complaining about "overpaid corporation CEOs". Yet every year, the school teachers bitch that they want more money, and the school superintendent screams for more money, yet the schools complain they cannot meet the most basic needs of the students -- clean facilities, plenty of classrooms, working HVAC systems, PAPER, etc.

We are a nation of managers. The highest ideal that many strive for is the corner office with a view and a staff of five to ten people. Matters not what you are managing, everyone wants out of the trenches and into the offices.

Once you are removed from the process everything is "better," You no longer have to worry about petty issues like fixing the HVAC in the the classrooms, or ordering supplies. All you have to do is worry about your little empire and how to spend your budget... on stuff like more computers for the office, possibly a new budgeting software package and stuff like that.

Then the teachers come in and say "how about a field trip to the butterfly garden for Biology class" and you say "Sorry no money in the budget" or they say "we need more basic supplies" and you send home a list of required items that each and every student is required to supply...

Naturally because each one of your staffers has a different agenda each class-department has wildly different supply requirements. Special colored pens, specific paper, highlighters, graphing calculator.... Can't get along with a gross of #2 pencils, a gross of blue pen and several notebooks... nooo each student has to pay between $300 and $500 each year for supplies.

And of course since you came up with this you deserve that $100,000 a year salary.

We are a nation of managers. Weather or not it's a corporation or our school-system the game is played the same way and the students or workers end up losing out.

 

[RJDiogenes]

We also need more teachers and more schools. Too many cities and towns have consolidated their schools; class sizes are too big for the students to receive individual attention.

 

[trampledamage]

We also need more teachers and more schools. Too many cities and towns have consolidated their schools; class sizes are too big for the students to receive individual attention.

This would go a long way to solving every country's education problems. More schools, more teachers - if you include paying teachers a lot more so it becomes a career of choice for more people, then we're getting somewhere.

 

[galleywest]

While the OP has made two compelling arguments now, I'd have to say that not spending money on schools prooooooobably isn't going to make the education system better. Spending it more effectively would be nice, however. Putting money into schools in the short run sure beats having to build more prisons in the long run.

 

[Strider]

Just go back and read USS_Triumphant's post. That basically sums it up. The technology expenditure is seriously irritating. The big new toy these days is the Smart Board (interactive white board connected to the computer). The total system, including projector, costs more than a couple thousand bucks per classroom. From my own teaching and from what I've observed of other teachers we really don't tap into the Smart Board's potential enough to even begin to justify the cost. I can do everything I need to do with a white board, textbook, tv, and handouts.

People also like to compare cost-per-student ratios from the 1950's with our current costs, as though schools were run so much better for so much less back then. What they conveniently forget to address is how the mission of the public school has changed since then. For better or worse, modern public schools cater far more to special needs students. We've seen the creation of modified diplomas, individualized education plans, gifted and talented programs, 504s for students with physical disabilities, seperate work study programs for mentally challenged students, English as a Second/Other Language classes for Hispanic students. I love my Hispanic students, and I'm really excited about the ways my high school is working with them, but all that costs money. Lots of money.

I mean, there's plenty of blame to go around for this. We honestly can't figure out as a nation what we want our schools to accomplish. We're always trying new theories and approaches only to toss them out the next year ( @ the "school-within-a-school" program). Lightning-fast developments in technology drive equally fast changes in society and the demands of the job market. We're constantly trying to adapt in ways that prepare students for the job market, but it's a nearly impossible task. If you really care to change public education policy, get your Doctorate in Education. If you really want to suffer under public education policy, be an idiot and get your Master of Arts in Teaching like I did!

 

[Dayton3]

I would like to see schools get back to raw basics.

No special education programs. No programs for kids with "special needs". No extra programs for students without parents and all the social engineering garbage.

And in regards to the textbooks. At least from the Social Studies textbooks, kids would be better off without them. All of them are garbage as far as I'm concerned.

 

[DanTheGrey]

Given that one of the major grumbles here year on year is the fact that, while property taxes have been frozen, we can see double digit school board tax increases annually, this question gets attention here every year.

I think a part of it is that things are taken for granted on the part of the public, and I think that (at least where I am) there is a complacency on the part of the teachers and administrators to rely on "but it's for the children" arguments rather than clearly communicating where the money is going.

Then again I wonder about the focus of schools considering I went through one of the last waves of more enlightened liberal arts/critical thinking phases around here. I really believe that teaching kids how to think rather than how to do is being lost in the noise of getting kindergarten kids onto computers rather than teaching them how to research, draw conclusions and articulate an opinion or know how to solve a problem. Meh, just editorializing in that last part...