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.
The sports facilities in Estrella were built with bond money approved by voters. The bonds also included a community olympic competitive pool that would be used by the school but also open to the public. It was never built. Sports are also heavily funded by tax credit donations allowed under AZ law. I give the max 400 bucks each year and I know a lot of people who do the same. I split mine between arts and various sports. AZ law does not let people who give money do so to classroom activities except for private schools. The scum in the state legislature have rigged it so that neighborhood schools are perennially underfunded while one scheme after another is hatched to funnel money to the private schools their kids attend. It is a travesty.
As for playing in a vacant field, I never saw a HS that did not have a football team and more. Sports are part of the school experience. In some places, HS football seems larger than life. Even the little one stop light town I grew up in had a full sports program. I guess my parents' generation wasn't the me-first tightwad sun-seeking retirees that we have in Arizona. They cared about their communities and recognized that cheering for the team is good for the kids and good for the community.
Just FYI, the chemistry class at foothills has nearly 50 kids in the lab that has seating for half that. It is unsafe and a poor learning experience. AP classes typically have 40 or more students per session. Putting a schedule together with advanced classes is an artform as they are not offered with regularity because they don't have the teachers to teach them. Teacher retention is a never-ending problem due to salaries that are below the median income even for teachers with advanced degrees. And Foothills is an affluent school. It is considered a good school by state standards. Education in this state is a mess and anyone who argues otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. Do you suppose the Chinese place such low value on educating their children, too?
Yep, the fun world of politics. Don't get me started.
Since we all agree AZ schools are limited in funds, I still strongly believe those 50 kids in a lab or AP classes of 40 or more students should be reduced before funding sports, no matter how much people want to cheer for the home school team. The education they receive in the classroom will have a much more far reaching effect on the majority of their lives than playing sports/cheering. And your example of teacher retention is the same reason I mentioned I'd pull sports and take that money(from a bond or not) and pay teachers more. I'll take a quality teacher/retaining them any day over a football team. Though I understand we do have a sports obsession in our country/it's a cultural thing I guess for some.
Another thought just came to mind that brings up a question. I'm not sure how ASU does it but I went to a university for some classes where there were hundreds of kids in a lecture center teaching us calculus and other subjects. I and other kids did fine in this environment. Perhaps having 40 or 50 kids in a high school class in AZ is not such a bad thing after all? Is it simply a drive to employ more teachers? I don't know.
In the end, and in a perfect world, both sports and school classroom funding, and art and music for that matter, would be funded to the optimum. But I like to approach an issue by dealing with what we have and making the most bang for the buck which is why I stated to get the classrooms in the best shape possible with limited resources before sports, and dumping sports if that's what it takes given limited resources. I think that makes sense to compete in today's world.
As for China, I think it's a cultural thing that they indeed value education more that our nation can't match. Unfortunately it seems many parents in our country don't value it as much as it shows up in stats how we rank world-wide. You sound like a good parent/stressed the value of education to your kids and support it which I think is great but many in other districts throughout AZ and our country don't have the same belief's in where I think it counts the most in the success of a kids education...from the parents.
This chart shows very clearly why I cringe when money is seen as the solution to our education "problems" in AZ or the nation for that matter. Look at some of the other educated countries/how they rank compared to the US vs what is spent on education:
Look at that big purple blob on what the US spends on education. After taking into account the population size of other countries and what they spend compared to the US, that to me is pathetic in what we are getting for our money, our ROI. 9th and 10th place in math rankings worldwide compared to the rest of the world and we are spending so much more money? It's frankly embarrassing. And while I'm all for education/it did very well for us, this is the reason I don't believe spending more money in AZ will do much to help our schools that aren't rated well. There's something much deeper that needs to be addressed and that I'm afraid is unfix-able and that's "broken" parents as I think the best bang for the buck in education is having engaged parents.
As for playing in a vacant field, I never saw a HS that did not have a football team and more. Sports are part of the school experience. In some places, HS football seems larger than life. Even the little one stop light town I grew up in had a full sports program. I guess my parents' generation wasn't the me-first tightwad sun-seeking retirees that we have in Arizona. They cared about their communities and recognized that cheering for the team is good for the kids and good for the community.
I'm willing to bet your parent's generation wasn't asked to fund the massive sports operations we see all over the valley (state/country) with not only lighted stadiums (it is AZ after all) but multiple lighted practice fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, multiple baseball/softball fields, etc. The pendulum has swung way off course.
Big surprise! I must not have been paying attention. Someone has to fund the schools, right? My taxes on this one lonely little house went up $471 which I think is a big increase for one year. The biggest bump was for Chandler Unified Schools, which, of course, I don't use, being retired. So, is that how Duval and Ducey plan to fund the schools? On our backs, again. I am lucky I have an exemption so I don't pay the whole amount but I do feel sorry for those who do, and might also be out of work.
There is a gaping hole in your "I don't use the schools so I don't want to pay" argument. I don't use medicare and medicaid either. Why am I helping pay for you? If you have substandard care, why should I vote to help you out? Because you are getting an exemption, your low income is the reason why people have to pick up your slack.
Just because you have a "lonely little house" doesn't mean you use less services on the remainder of your Chandler taxes. As you might guess, I'm not a fan of your "I don't use the school argument". I too don't use the schools anymore. I have two houses each paying a lot more in school taxes than a house your size. I cannot live in two houses at once. But AZ schools are underfunded and I have no problem paying more. But I don't want others to weasel out of theirs obligation though exemptions claiming the cannot afford it. I say pay the whole $471 and stop transferring your obligations onto people who have to work twice as hard to cover your "lucky" exemption.
Look at that big purple blob on what the US spends on education. After taking into account the population size of other countries and what they spend compared to the US, that to me is pathetic in what we are getting for our money, our ROI. 9th and 10th place in math rankings worldwide compared to the rest of the world and we are spending so much more money? It's frankly embarrassing. And while I'm all for education/it did very well for us, this is the reason I don't believe spending more money in AZ will do much to help our schools that aren't rated well. There's something much deeper that needs to be addressed and that I'm afraid is unfix-able and that's "broken" parents as I think the best bang for the buck in education is having engaged parents.
Your last sentence is spot on. But engaged AZ parents know that their kids education is below par on a national level.
With that said, I clicked on your link. All that tells me is a lot of kids are underachieving in the USA. The severe under achievers RAISE the average cost per pupil skewing the results because they need to hire overhead just to keep them out of trouble.
Considering that the USA has 25% of the entire worlds wealth with only 4% of the worlds population, that suggests at least some kids have gotten a massive leg-up. Motivated parents often go out of their way to extract the best K-12 schools for their kids. The best of the best high school students like to pick the best of the best colleges if they can afford it. The elite colleges spend $50,000 per student per year. Considering the massive endowments of the best colleges, can we agree that the highest achievers see the value of a world class (extremely expensive) education? Do we think think the highest performing kids are coming out of the Dysart district? So it should be obvious that spending more for at least a small subset of students adds value. Because I think we proved that spending 3X more on a group of under achievers buys you absolutely nothing. My broader point is the K-12 schools in the Valley as a whole are underfunded. We agree, most families waste their opportunities.
If it was only about average metric scores in math, science, and reading like the link you supplied suggested, then Finland would be kicking butt on the world stage.
If we stare at purple blobs and rationalize why we don't need to spend more because too many underachievers are in the mix, then you will also be holding back the overachievers which seem to help generate our 25% of the worlds wealth statistic. It's also PART of the reason why the wealth is held in only 1% of the population.
As parents, we attached the high priority on education. The end result is our daughter is in dentistry school here in AZ. Our son is in a top ranked college and arguably the most expensive in the world. He was in China for language immersion, has several college class sizes totaling 5-10 students, they have a 200 student program where their goal is generate future scholars (Rhodes, Truman, etc) and they are in the top 5 nationally that generate Rhodes scholars. Analogy: we could look at a purple blob showing the USA spends more than any other country on college and "prove" it is a waste.
I give some credit to our incredible MN schools which many years yield the highers average ACT scores. See http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/states.html . Notice that Arizona finished 43rd in the nation on the ACT college bound test. Arizona's ACT score is at a dismal 19.6 of college bound kids. Those average kids will be off to Scottsdale Community College. Then the parents will complain because college was a waste of $$'s. It was for them!
Both of my kids will be paying a lot in property taxes in the coming years. I hope they are happy to pay and don't b_itch if they decide not to have kids or after they are empty nesters.
Rant complete.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 10-01-2014 at 06:30 AM..
I really get fired up when I see the arguments about how throwing *millions* of dollars at *high school* math & science programs "helps my property values" - it's hogwash & snobbery in the first degree.
I went to school at the beginning of the "we're behind *China* in math" freakout (which has been going on for thirty+ years, btw!). Now, we're giving high-school students pumped-up gpa's for taking college classes in high-school. It isn't necessary - we have great community colleges, who can teach "college math" in an actual *college*, for $300-$400 per class. If your little Johnny or Jane is a math-whiz, they can take summer classes (while still in high school!) - dual enrollment isn't nearly as much of a hassle now as it was when I did it in the 1980's, it isn't expensive, and it *shouldn't* result in a 6.0 gpa on a 4.0 scale. It's just math, not brain surgery that's being taught.
The myth that bio 201 or math 120 @ Asu (or some "Ivy-league" college) is somehow "different" or "better than" the same class at any of our (Ten!) affiliated community colleges is just as absurd as the push to make fifth-graders take trig. Every student in the valley has cheap & easy access to *real* college classes, taught at a *real* college. The idea that every taxpayer should *gladly* hand over $xx every year (forever!) in tax money to push college classes down to high school is eminently wasteful and ignorant.
I really get fired up when I see the arguments about how throwing *millions* of dollars at *high school* math & science programs "helps my property values" - it's hogwash & snobbery in the first degree.
I went to school at the beginning of the "we're behind *China* in math" freakout (which has been going on for thirty+ years, btw!). Now, we're giving high-school students pumped-up gpa's for taking college classes in high-school. It isn't necessary - we have great community colleges, who can teach "college math" in an actual *college*, for $300-$400 per class. If your little Johnny or Jane is a math-whiz, they can take summer classes (while still in high school!) - dual enrollment isn't nearly as much of a hassle now as it was when I did it in the 1980's, it isn't expensive, and it *shouldn't* result in a 6.0 gpa on a 4.0 scale. It's just math, not brain surgery that's being taught.
The myth that bio 201 or math 120 @ Asu (or some "Ivy-league" college) is somehow "different" or "better than" the same class at any of our (Ten!) affiliated community colleges is just as absurd as the push to make fifth-graders take trig. Every student in the valley has cheap & easy access to *real* college classes, taught at a *real* college. The idea that every taxpayer should *gladly* hand over $xx every year (forever!) in tax money to push college classes down to high school is eminently wasteful and ignorant.
We agree. ASU teaches Calc like the Community colleges which teaches Calc like MIT. But there is a big difference after you finish your generals. Don't expect Chief judges Sotomayor to stop in at the Scottsdale Community college or Condoleezza Rice teach political science at Glendale Community college. There isn't research opportunities either. For the vast majority of students (including myself), that's all I needed.
Both of my kids went to full time college in 10th and 11th grade. My son shared what the differences are between a top college and a community college. Night-Day differences. It's not remotely close in some of the programs.
Did you see my ACT link that shows Arizona is #43 in the nation for average ACT scores? It seems that at least some districts are under achieving. Do you think the top quality teachers are coming to AZ to be overworked and underpaid? Not all higher paid teacher are better. But AZ isn't attracting the best teaching talent either.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 10-01-2014 at 07:17 AM..
I'm willing to bet your parent's generation wasn't asked to fund the massive sports operations we see all over the valley (state/country) with not only lighted stadiums (it is AZ after all) but multiple lighted practice fields, soccer fields, tennis courts, multiple baseball/softball fields, etc. The pendulum has swung way off course.
We had lighted fields - football any way. It's where they get the expression: Friday night lights. But, no, like so much these days school sports, primarily football, seem to be done to excess. But sports in this state do not take away from education funding. The state does not pay for sports facilities when building new schools. They are supported by bonds that the people vote on. Bonds for sports facilities almost always win. Bonds for maintenance, classroom equipment and funds to retain teachers often loose. One of the approaches to getting bonds passed is to include sports facilities in the bond. Without that, even fewer would be passed.
Like everywhere we value sports in high school higher than academic accomplishment. My high school mentions an academic letter that students can get for high achievement in coursework in the literature they sent home at the beginning of each year. When we inquired about it, no one could find any info or recall any student who "lettered" under the policy. All we got was a lot of "who cares" looks when we tried to pursue it.
We aren't all that bad with sports spending in AZ compared to some places though. Look at this high school stadium. It is in Texas and while I think this is absurd I will remind you that Texas spends much more on education in general than AZ, has a much better ranked education system and a much better economy as well at the moment. They have staggering property taxes though.
I really get fired up when I see the arguments about how throwing *millions* of dollars at *high school* math & science programs "helps my property values" - it's hogwash & snobbery in the first degree.
I went to school at the beginning of the "we're behind *China* in math" freakout (which has been going on for thirty+ years, btw!). Now, we're giving high-school students pumped-up gpa's for taking college classes in high-school. It isn't necessary - we have great community colleges, who can teach "college math" in an actual *college*, for $300-$400 per class. If your little Johnny or Jane is a math-whiz, they can take summer classes (while still in high school!) - dual enrollment isn't nearly as much of a hassle now as it was when I did it in the 1980's, it isn't expensive, and it *shouldn't* result in a 6.0 gpa on a 4.0 scale. It's just math, not brain surgery that's being taught.
The myth that bio 201 or math 120 @ Asu (or some "Ivy-league" college) is somehow "different" or "better than" the same class at any of our (Ten!) affiliated community colleges is just as absurd as the push to make fifth-graders take trig. Every student in the valley has cheap & easy access to *real* college classes, taught at a *real* college. The idea that every taxpayer should *gladly* hand over $xx every year (forever!) in tax money to push college classes down to high school is eminently wasteful and ignorant.
You seem to be misinformed. Dual enrollment is paid for by the parents. If your kids take a dual enrollment class they are registered and pay the same fees as they would were they to take the class at the community college. English 101/102 costs nearly $600 to the parents. It does not cost you a plugged nickel. None of your tax money goes for dual enrollment classes. That's my district anyway. Maybe others are different.
Dual enrollment courses do not pump up the GPA either. Many schools give an extra point for AP and honors classes, but universities universally use an unweighted average for admission. They claim to consider the greater difficulty of honors or AP. They also only consider GPA in what they call core courses - the basics of math, science, English, etc. The advantage to the student of dual enrollment is that they can take some courses that will be in their curriculum in college and not have to deal with them allowing them to take more advance classes in the university or elective courses that they would not have room on their schedule for otherwise. In some cases it could shorten the time they need to finish so they can get to work paying their loans off to the banks that have turned higher education into a profit center with the help of the government.
Last edited by Ponderosa; 10-01-2014 at 08:25 AM..
There is a gaping hole in your "I don't use the schools so I don't want to pay" argument. I don't use medicare and medicaid either. Why am I helping pay for you? If you have substandard care, why should I vote to help you out? Because you are getting an exemption, your low income is the reason why people have to pick up your slack.
Just because you have a "lonely little house" doesn't mean you use less services on the remainder of your Chandler taxes. As you might guess, I'm not a fan of your "I don't use the school argument". I too don't use the schools anymore. I have two houses each paying a lot more in school taxes than a house your size. I cannot live in two houses at once. But AZ schools are underfunded and I have no problem paying more. But I don't want others to weasel out of theirs obligation though exemptions claiming the cannot afford it. I say pay the whole $471 and stop transferring your obligations onto people who have to work twice as hard to cover your "lucky" exemption.
You just hate senior citizens don't you?
Why don't you sell one of those houses and donate the money to the schools? I have a LAWFUL exemption
given to me by the state, as do all other seniors who qualify. So, what's wrong with that?? I get the point: you like to argue for no purpose.
Why don't you sell one of those houses and donate the money to the schools? I have a LAWFUL exemption
given to me by the state, as do all other seniors who qualify. So, what's wrong with that?? I get the point: you like to argue for no purpose.
That's silly. It would be like me saying you hate students.
"What's wring with it" is you think that you don't have to pay school taxes because you don't have kids in the system. Using your logic, I shouldn't have to pay for Medicare. I'll never use it. THAT was my point.
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.
Motivated parents often go out of their way to extract the best K-12 schools for their kids. The best of the best high school students like to pick the best of the best colleges if they can afford it. The elite colleges spend $50,000 per student per year. Considering the massive endowments of the best colleges, can we agree that the highest achievers see the value of a world class (extremely expensive) education? Do we think think the highest performing kids are coming out of the Dysart district?
So it should be obvious that spending more for at least a small subset of students adds value. Because I think we proved that spending 3X more on a group of under achievers buys you absolutely nothing. My broader point is the K-12 schools in the Valley as a whole are underfunded. We agree, most families waste their opportunities. 
