Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is happening, Illinois has a general fund for education. You may not feel it is an efficient system but it exists.
As I stated previously, I don't think things would work out as you think they would. The Chicago area would end up subsidizing the rest of the state as they do now. If you want to do it at the national level, Illinois would be subsidizing other states like we do already in other areas like transportation.
If you define the Chicago area to include the North Shore, maybe. But there's no question that the State of Illinois in violation of the its own constitution, which dictates that it is the state which must provide the majority of public education funding (not just "the system").
So prison is better and more humane than providing an education with some discipline?
Obviously nothing could be forced without some sort of conviction for a crime.
In my public school upbringing, we had something called an "alternative high school" for kids who had chronic discipline or legal troubles, and they had a better level of intervention from social workers and judicial supervision. This is nothing different that that, but the volume of troubled students is just so much higher in CPS that it overwhelms the services that are available in traditional schools.
For 2013, CPS got about $2.1 billion of its budget through property taxes, and $1.85 billion from the state. So we are all paying for CPS schools.
And don't forget that the kids who live in the City's happily gentrifying neighborhoods have tended to relocate to other school districts in Chicagoland, where they usually arrive woefully behind grade level. And families of kids effected by the CPS school closings are also relocating to near suburbs, who are faced with a glut of underperforming kids, lower test scores, and the very hard choice of whether or not to raise taxes to try to accommodate that. So it's an issue impacting all of Chicagoland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Rothstein
It is happening, Illinois has a general fund for education. You may not feel it is an efficient system but it exists.
As I stated previously, I don't think things would work out as you think they would. The Chicago area would end up subsidizing the rest of the state as they do now. If you want to do it at the national level, Illinois would be subsidizing other states like we do already in other areas like transportation.
You are entitled to that opinion, and the State does fund education based on need. But it's not doing near enough to fulfill the first clause in Art. X, Sec. 1, in either money, methods or structure. So our scheme is in total violation of the Illinois Constitution, per Justice Bru67 anyway, LOL!
As to where the funds would go, I don't have time to dig through the ISAT data but I'd bet schools in CPS and some near Cook County suburbs are well represented at the very bottom of the heap. So the scenario may end up the reverse of how you have it. Even if not, education is not strictly an urban problem. No one's saying the kids who live downstate should be deprived of educational development to the limits of their capacities.
I think this is the right idea...test scores and college prep have to take a back seat to basic life skills, sex-ed, etc. Kids having kids is a huge reason why this cycle is so hard to break.
This falls into my black culture argument that I've made many times when addressing the problems for the black community.
It all starts with the culture of single parenthood and the lack of husbands (not fathers, there are plenty of those, they just don't do any 'fathering').
And don't forget that the kids who live in the City's happily gentrifying neighborhoods have tended to relocate to other school districts in Chicagoland, where they usually arrive woefully behind grade level. And families of kids effected by the CPS school closings are also relocating to near suburbs, who are faced with a glut of underperforming kids, lower test scores, and the very hard choice of whether or not to raise taxes to try to accommodate that. So it's an issue impacting all of Chicagoland.
You are entitled to that opinion, and the State does fund education based on need. But it's not doing near enough to fulfill the first clause in Art. X, Sec. 1, in either money, methods or structure. So our scheme is in total violation of the Illinois Constitution, per Justice Bru67 anyway, LOL!
As to where the funds would go, I don't have time to dig through the ISAT data but I'd bet schools in CPS and some near Cook County suburbs are well represented at the very bottom of the heap. So the scenario may end up the reverse of how you have it. Even if not, education is not strictly an urban problem. No one's saying the kids who live downstate should be deprived of educational development to the limits of their capacities.
It's possible things have changed, but a few misconceptions I have heard over the years & experienced personally:
1. COS is underfunded, in absolute terms.
On a per-student basis, CPS gets a good amount of money. The problem is the system is large and inefficient and not nearly enough goes to hire teachers or other immediate impacts.
CPS is burdened with ancient building stock which costs a fortune to heat/cool, not to mention chock full of asbestos and mold which needs remediation.
Then there's the billing... they pay their bills so late that suppliers upcharge them, knowing they will be out of pocket for months.
And then there's the busing. Oh my god, it is a fortune they have to spend on this - gas, maintenance, and bus driver salaries.
2. North Side (or Lincoln Park, or South Loop, etc) schools get more money.
That's a load of b.s. They all get the same amount, it's based on attendance. This is why the poorer areas with half empty buildings are so screwed. They're paying for upkeep and staffing for square footage they can't use. Even a half empty school still needs rooms to be cleaned, secured, checked by security, etc.
I hear a lot of talk about Chicago schools being bad. I grew up and lived all over metro Chicago and went to many schools in CPS. Lots of people say they are horrible and I would agree. Going to school I remember only one school having bad teachers and that as at Curtis in Roseland. But in retrospect, I think those teachers were just burnt out from dealing with horribly-behaved students.
I think the most difficult time I had in school in CPS was being in class with rowdy kids or being bullied. I remember having many concerned teachers and even though I wasn't always the best student, I still learned a lot and ended up being pretty well-rounded.
So my question is, what makes CPS bad: the curriculum or bad students from poor neighborhoods?
Are schools in less economically distressed areas on the northside just as bad as schools in poor areas on the southside?
Is it just the schools with a large number of poor black students that are the bad schools?
To answer your question simply:
Parents who don't give a S********* how their kids PERFORM and act in school.
Parents who don't give a S********* how their kids PERFORM and act in school.
(emphasis added)
Well, but it's more than that - it's that CPS isn't allowed to expel them, short of felony behavior.
I am 100% for public education, but IMO it's part of a social compact, not a constitutional right on par with the freedom of speech.
Part of that social compact is on us, the taxpayer, to provide the school system. But the other side of the coin is on the students, who I think should be expected to put a reasonable amount of effort into their education, and certainly should not be permitted to disrupt anyone else's.
I would wager that by simply lowering the cut-off age we could get rid of a lot of the chronic problem "children" who are dragging down everyone else. I never bought into this concept that "special needs" kids should be in high school in their early 20s. Just think about that for a minute - you have all of these kids labeled special ed who are often just hard cases the teachers want segregated out of the gen pop, and they stick around until they turn 22.
That's outrageous on a lot of levels. Who on earth would want their 14 or 15 year old daughter in an environment which guys old enough to be drafted and to legally drink?
I'd say by 19 you need to keep moving on. That's why we have continuing education programs like the GED.
Well, but it's more than that - it's that CPS isn't allowed to expel them, short of felony behavior.
I am 100% for public education, but IMO it's part of a social compact, not a constitutional right on par with the freedom of speech.
Part of that social compact is on us, the taxpayer, to provide the school system. But the other side of the coin is on the students, who I think should be expected to put a reasonable amount of effort into their education, and certainly should not be permitted to disrupt anyone else's.
I would wager that by simply lowering the cut-off age we could get rid of a lot of the chronic problem "children" who are dragging down everyone else. I never bought into this concept that "special needs" kids should be in high school in their early 20s. Just think about that for a minute - you have all of these kids labeled special ed who are often just hard cases the teachers want segregated out of the gen pop, and they stick around until they turn 22.
That's outrageous on a lot of levels. Who on earth would want their 14 or 15 year old daughter in an environment which guys old enough to be drafted and to legally drink?
I'd say by 19 you need to keep moving on. That's why we have continuing education programs like the GED.
I will reply. Just not now.
I know more than the average Hay-Shaker (Irish-Tom's words, not mine).
Special Ed tends to consume lots of resources on a "per child" basis in all school districts but the details of which kids are the most "expensive" are rarely other than those with the most profoundly heart breaking needs -- kids with severe traumatic injuries, those that suffer from major physcial impairments, cerebal palsy, the kind of things that really anybody just tears up about when they look at their own healthy kids....
I doubt there would be any broad support to cut off funding for these kinds of things and these are far and away the majority of students recieving services past 18.
Really hard to find any major "fat" to slice out of CPS these days -- Paul Vallas did that heavy lifting. The thing too is most folks that analyze why Vallas and Daley had a falling out tend to agree that it becuase of financial issues related to just how little the schools could "survive" on. Vallas laid out the costs of building new schools vs retrofitting old ones. The framework was large adapted and most impartial observers agree that even if you don't like the design or philosophy of how / where some of the schools have been built there is not any signficant fat to cut out of the mostly professional architects and engineers that work on these things from the Welcome to the Public Building Commission of Chicago
Fact is when Vallas told Daley back in 2001 "hey we gotta raise taxes" and Daley essentailly said "not on my watch" it was Vallas that did the smart thing by leaving. A dozen years later, after many schools have been made over / moved to more efficient new buildings there is STILL and EVEN MORE ACUTE need to raise taxes. Signs are that Rahm will "say yes", but degree to which that will continue to be insufficient to BOTH plug the HUGE holes that exist is pension funding (yes CTU has a SEPARATE system than the rest of teachers in Illinois...) AND try to get enough cash into the classrooms of CPS so that they do not look too terrible like "horse & buggy" era instruction compared to the "web enabled" classrooms of towns that have continually invested in their schools...
For 2013, CPS got about $2.1 billion of its budget through property taxes, and $1.85 billion from the state. So we are all paying for CPS schools. Pages*- Revenue
Even though Federal aid is listed as a separate line, much (if not most) of the state money that comes to CPS is Federal money that is passed through the state, so listing it as "state" aid isn't quite accurate. While Chicago certainly gets more state aid than any other municipality in Illinois it also contributes to state coffers much more than any other municipality. The way they report the numbers makes it very hard to disentangle state and federal funding.
Where does the lottery money go? I thought that was all supposed to go to the school fund.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
