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.
I agree with your point that you feel it goes beyond $ and the reasons behind it. Though I still don't think throwing money at the situation will solve anything based on the data:
That's a sobering chart on the pro funding argument.
With that said, I certainly think there can be an argument made to spend the current school budgets in smarter ways(ie less admin type positions). And perhaps more babysitters instead of teachers for parents of kids who don't care about their children's school success? Let's call that a half serious/half joking wink.
My understanding is 2 out of the 3 AZ schools that made the top 10 performing high schools in the nation are public schools:
The Scottsdale school is indeed a private run school, part of Basic Schools Inc. However, Gilbert High school is part of the Gilbert Unified School District and Tollson high school is part of the Tollson union high school district.
I rated this post positively and I agree with a lot of your arguments.
It was an oversight on my part as you're right, the both the Gilbert and Tolleson schools are district "magnet" schools and the BASIS school is a "charter" school.
In fact, I did some further analysis of that list and found that the BASIS school is the only school of the top 25 on that list that isn't run by a traditional school district.
My point still stands though that a "magnet" or "charter" school will always score better than a "traditional" school such as Paradise Valley High School, Central High School, Barry Goldwater High School, etc. as "magnet" and "charter" schools require students to test or meet other criteria for entry into their programs so they have the brightest and best students in a particular district or area. This is a double edged sword. It takes the brightest and best students away from the traditional setup which further dilutes and weakens the quality rankings of the traditional schools.
I am not arguing against these "magnet" schools and in fact I think other districts should invest in these programs. They're every bit as academically rigerous and have the same, if not better, motivated students than top private options like Phoenix Country Day School, Notre Dame, Brophy, or St. Mary's.
I will not argue at all that there is too much administration at schools. Some of that administration exists because the legislature (state and federal) requires schools to jump through a lot of hoops to obtain funding. However, there's no earthly reason why we have separate Elementary and High School districts in many places.
I WILL argue that we need to pay teachers better. If teachers in Arizona are not to get tenure and other job protections that teachers in a good percentage of other places get (and I actually like the fact that in Arizona there is not "special" job security for teachers) than at least we should pay teachers here better. I know several qualified people who were drawn to the teaching profession as high school or college students but left it as they couldn't make a reasonable living wage. Teachers in other states are paid better than Arizona teachers. I believe this is where the major school funding argument is.
I'd be in favor of legislation to increase teacher pay, consolidate any separate elementary and high school districts, and close and consolidate underutilized school facilities (while selling surplus real estate), and expanding "magnet" programs.
I rated this post positively and I agree with a lot of your arguments.
It was an oversight on my part as you're right, the both the Gilbert and Tolleson schools are district "magnet" schools and the BASIS school is a "charter" school.
In fact, I did some further analysis of that list and found that the BASIS school is the only school of the top 25 on that list that isn't run by a traditional school district.
My point still stands though that a "magnet" or "charter" school will always score better than a "traditional" school such as Paradise Valley High School, Central High School, Barry Goldwater High School, etc. as "magnet" and "charter" schools require students to test or meet other criteria for entry into their programs so they have the brightest and best students in a particular district or area. This is a double edged sword. It takes the brightest and best students away from the traditional setup which further dilutes and weakens the quality rankings of the traditional schools.
I am not arguing against these "magnet" schools and in fact I think other districts should invest in these programs. They're every bit as academically rigerous and have the same, if not better, motivated students than top private options like Phoenix Country Day School, Notre Dame, Brophy, or St. Mary's.
I will not argue at all that there is too much administration at schools. Some of that administration exists because the legislature (state and federal) requires schools to jump through a lot of hoops to obtain funding. However, there's no earthly reason why we have separate Elementary and High School districts in many places.
I WILL argue that we need to pay teachers better. If teachers in Arizona are not to get tenure and other job protections that teachers in a good percentage of other places get (and I actually like the fact that in Arizona there is not "special" job security for teachers) than at least we should pay teachers here better. I know several qualified people who were drawn to the teaching profession as high school or college students but left it as they couldn't make a reasonable living wage. Teachers in other states are paid better than Arizona teachers. I believe this is where the major school funding argument is.
I'd be in favor of legislation to increase teacher pay, consolidate any separate elementary and high school districts, and close and consolidate underutilized school facilities (while selling surplus real estate), and expanding "magnet" programs.
Very good points.
And I will agree with you if we are to increase spending for anything, it should be for those directly providing the "real work" in education and that of course includes teachers. I'd start with taking money from admin positions and using this money to pay the teachers more but as you say, given the legislation aspect, this is probably not reality given how politics work.
And yes, certainly agree on the point about charter/private schools. They will overall indeed perform better because as you say, these are the parents that for the most part care most about their kids education success.
Thanks for the rep and right back to you. You bring up many good points which refreshingly goes beyond the "just throw more money at it!" to address an issue.
And I will agree with you if we are to increase spending for anything, it should be for those directly providing the "real work" in education and that of course includes teachers. I'd start with taking money from admin positions and using this money to pay the teachers more but as you say, given the legislation aspect, this is probably not reality given how politics work.
And yes, certainly agree on the point about charter/private schools. They will overall indeed perform better because as you say, these are the parents that for the most part care most about their kids education success.
Thanks for the rep and right back to you. You bring up many good points which refreshingly goes beyond the "just throw more money at it!" to address an issue.
I am a firm believer that we don't need to increase the overall state budget by $1 to solve the education mess.
We have enough money in the state budget to put more money into the classrooms, but we need to have creativity among the different stakeholders (legislators, governor, school districts, community groups). In addition to combining Elementary and High School districts into Unified districts (which is long overdue), we need to close low attended schools and sell surplus land and property (putting the money directly back into the districts capital budgets allowing districts to shift capital spending to classroom spending). We also should be more proactive about leveraging school facilities as community centers and dual purposing school property. For example, instead of a city having a public library down the street from a school that has its own library, the public library and the school library should be one in the same with the city and the school system splitting the cost of operating the library so that neither has to operate it as a standalone entity. (Yes, I know that there are security risks here but I think that they could be addressed at a relatively minimal cost).
I believe the same should be true of parks. Most city parks don't get a lot of use (if any at all) while students are in school. We could dual purpose city parks / school playgrounds so that the city and school system split the costs of maintaining the park / playgrounds as opposed to operating two separate entities. In addition, instead of school gymnasiums sitting empty after school hours, community recreation groups and programs should be able to rent/utilize space in school buildings to again, provide more funding to classrooms.
The problem with all of my ideas are that no governmental organization wants to cede any control to another entity. The school districts and cities will fight tooth and nail over control of school facilities. Security will be used as an excuse as to why this can't be done.
As far as the overall state budget, ADOT can probably get away with letting its road signs wear out a bit more than they do now (and only replace signage when signs are damaged or significantly worn), we can institute sentencing reform to get non-violent offenders out of prisons (and off of the public dole), we can close tax loopholes, and we can fully eliminate influence of special interests. These plans will save even more money that we could put into the classrooms without raising taxes.
Again, though, everyone's got their hands in the pot of public money and every one of my proposals will be argued as to how they cannot be done as opposed to how they can be done.
I am a firm believer that we don't need to increase the overall state budget by $1 to solve the education mess.
We have enough money in the state budget to put more money into the classrooms, but we need to have creativity among the different stakeholders (legislators, governor, school districts, community groups). In addition to combining Elementary and High School districts into Unified districts (which is long overdue), we need to close low attended schools and sell surplus land and property (putting the money directly back into the districts capital budgets allowing districts to shift capital spending to classroom spending). We also should be more proactive about leveraging school facilities as community centers and dual purposing school property. For example, instead of a city having a public library down the street from a school that has its own library, the public library and the school library should be one in the same with the city and the school system splitting the cost of operating the library so that neither has to operate it as a standalone entity. (Yes, I know that there are security risks here but I think that they could be addressed at a relatively minimal cost).
I believe the same should be true of parks. Most city parks don't get a lot of use (if any at all) while students are in school. We could dual purpose city parks / school playgrounds so that the city and school system split the costs of maintaining the park / playgrounds as opposed to operating two separate entities. In addition, instead of school gymnasiums sitting empty after school hours, community recreation groups and programs should be able to rent/utilize space in school buildings to again, provide more funding to classrooms.
The problem with all of my ideas are that no governmental organization wants to cede any control to another entity. The school districts and cities will fight tooth and nail over control of school facilities. Security will be used as an excuse as to why this can't be done.
As far as the overall state budget, ADOT can probably get away with letting its road signs wear out a bit more than they do now (and only replace signage when signs are damaged or significantly worn), we can institute sentencing reform to get non-violent offenders out of prisons (and off of the public dole), we can close tax loopholes, and we can fully eliminate influence of special interests. These plans will save even more money that we could put into the classrooms without raising taxes.
Again, though, everyone's got their hands in the pot of public money and every one of my proposals will be argued as to how they cannot be done as opposed to how they can be done.
Excellent points. There are indeed so many solutions with the current funding. And yes, there are crazy amounts of power/control elements out there, favors($) owed to this/that/the other group or persons that I think it all gets tainted very quickly and the original purpose/intent gets tossed to the back. It's amazing how creative and productive the human being and enterprise can be when they learn they don't have infinite resources($) that the gov seems to love to promise.
A friend of mine once told me he thinks there should be IQ tests given before one can vote. I seriously think he's on to something.
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.
Let's call that a half serious/half joking wink.
