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.
Where I live there was this big claim going on by certain groups that the more middle class neighborhoods were getting a lot more money given to their schools, more money per student.
Then it was revealed that the lower class neighborhoods were getting significantly more money for the schools, signifiantly higher spending per student. Federal grant money pours into certain schools in this region and SAT scores are plummeting and fewer students than ever bother taking the SAT.
That sounds very familiar. Just recently there was this article about the Memphis public school system that wanted to merge with the more successful suburban school system. They also complained of being underfunded but when the numbers came out, their schools spent more money per student and had a much worse graduation rate.
These groups fail to realize that money cannot substitute for involved parents and students who are willing to learn.
Yes, people who read would know that the USA spends a whole lot more per student than do nations with better education systems.
We are utterly throwing money at education but not spending wisely. We throw money at a problem and think all it takes is more money and a problem is solved.
It's definitely not about money or too little spending.
The Finns spend 6.83% on education as a percentage of GDP whereas the US spends 4.83%. The Finns spend more as a percentage of total expenditure than we do.
The dollar amounts may be different, but that's for a few reasons.
1) They have universal healthcare. A significant portion of funds goes towards benefits for teachers. If we had universal healthcare, we wouldn't pay over inflated prices for teacher benefits.
2) There are no scholarships for teachers in Finland since Finnish teachers do not end up in crushing debt just to become teachers.
3) Social welfare programs ensure that Finns have a pretty equitable standard of living so there is no need to essentially bribe teachers to go to Finnish ghettos since they do not exist in scope and depression as in the US.
I would imagine that in order to get the level the Finland has achieved, we would have to spend more (better preschools, not having teachers in crushing debt, etc.) since they spend more on social programs. We spend more per pupil, but due to our priorities a large percentage is used just to try fix other messes that are associated with the cost of education and not actual education.
The 2008-2009 edition of the Michigan Department of Education's ranking of Michigan Public School financial data showed the mean Detroit Public School teacher's salary stood at $71,031, more than 14% higher than the state average of $62,237.
Michigan Department of Education. 2008-2009 Bulletin 1014, Michigan Public School districts Ranked by Selected Financial Data. Published May 2010.
That means it's higher in Detroit than in other parts of Michigan... I wonder why???
The Finns spend 6.83% on education as a percentage of GDP whereas the US spends 4.83%. The Finns spend more as a percentage of total expenditure than we do.
The dollar amounts may be different, but that's for a few reasons.
1) They have universal healthcare. A significant portion of funds goes towards benefits for teachers. If we had universal healthcare, we wouldn't pay over inflated prices for teacher benefits.
2) There are no scholarships for teachers in Finland since Finnish teachers do not end up in crushing debt just to become teachers.
3) Social welfare programs ensure that Finns have a pretty equitable standard of living so there is no need to essentially bribe teachers to go to Finnish ghettos since they do not exist in scope and depression as in the US.
I would imagine that in order to get the level the Finland has achieved, we would have to spend more (better preschools, not having teachers in crushing debt, etc.) since they spend more on social programs. We spend more per pupil, but due to our priorities a large percentage is used just to try fix other messes that are associated with the cost of education and not actual education.
Did you look at the spending per student? We are spending more money per student than Finland.
Using % of GDP is a ridiculous comparison because our GDP is so much higher than Finland's GDP.
Did you look at the spending per student? We are spending more money per student than Finland.
Using % of GDP is a ridiculous comparison because our GDP is so much higher than Finland's GDP.
I did. You're not accounting for WHAT we are spending it on (spoiler alert, a lot of things that are covered by other social programs in Finland). Also, it's good to look at GDP percent since it does give a bigger picture of funding and priorities.
This point is proven without doubt by looking at poverty rates in conservative countries of the world compared with poverty rates in more progressive policies.
You all sure do make a lot of things up. Please explain the high poverty rate in the rural South, which enacts conservative policy.
I did. You're not accounting for WHAT we are spending it on (spoiler alert, a lot of things that are covered by other social programs in Finland). Also, it's good to look at GDP percent since it does give a bigger picture of funding and priorities.
Comparing based on GDP gives a skewed picture because our GDP is many many times Finland's GDP.
Comparing based on GDP gives a skewed picture because our GDP is many many times Finland's GDP.
Per pupil spending only refers to school, that's it. Not total education expenditure. They spend MORE on GDP for schooling. Despite the fact that universal healthcare exists and there are no programs for scholarships and grants for teachers.
That's the larger picture. So we need to spend more to have similar benefits, but we spend less as a function of GDP? Do you see how that works out?
There is universal pre-school in Finland (it does not increase per pupil spending but increases overall spending). If you go strictly by per pupil spending, you do not get the full picture, you need to see education as a function of GDP as well.
Finland also has state subsidized university (again does not increase per pupil spending...but increases overall spending which is in turn increases education as a function of GDP).
If we were to enactsuch programs we would have to have HIGHER percentage since teacher benefits would be included (again the whole universal healthcare which is not measured in education expenditure, but teacher healthcare and benefits are in the US).
So per pupil spending does not tell the whole story since such programs do not increase per pupil spending (since it's the same pupil), but increases overall expenditure (more programs available throughout different times of their lives...thus not affecting per pupil spending which is measured as spending at a given point in time).
Per pupil spending only refers to school, that's it. Not total education expenditure. They spend MORE on GDP for schooling. Despite the fact that universal healthcare exists and there are no programs for scholarships and grants for teachers.
That's the larger picture. So we need to spend more to have similar benefits, but we spend less as a function of GDP? Do you see how that works out?
There is universal pre-school in Finland (it does not increase per pupil spending but increases overall spending). If you go strictly by per pupil spending, you do not get the full picture, you need to see education as a function of GDP as well.
Finland also has state subsidized university (again does not increase per pupil spending...but increases overall spending which is in turn increases education as a function of GDP).
If we were to enactsuch programs we would have to have HIGHER percentage since teacher benefits would be included (again the whole universal healthcare which is not measured in education expenditure, but teacher healthcare and benefits are in the US).
So per pupil spending does not tell the whole story since such programs do not increase per pupil spending (since it's the same pupil), but increases overall expenditure (more programs available throughout different times of their lives...thus not affecting per pupil spending which is measured as spending at a given point in time).
Isn't it just amazing that the homeschoolers don't get any government funding and yet they turn out students who consistently score very high on academic tests, and get admitted into the most selective colleges and universities? How on earth did they manage without government money??
Any adult who has BASIC knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic can teach a child to master the skills learned in the early grades. Parents who can read themselves are capable of checking books out of the library on subjects they don't know well, and they can learn alongside their child. It is a complete absurdity to assert that children aren't reading well because the schools are not getting enough government money and teachers aren't getting enough benefits. WTH?
The illiteracy rates in Detroit are due to PARENTAL FAILURE and nothing else.
Isn't it just amazing that the homeschoolers don't get any government funding and yet they turn out students who consistently score very high on academic tests, and get admitted into the most selective colleges and universities? How on earth did they manage without government money??
Any adult who has BASIC knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic can teach a child to master the skills learned in the early grades. Parents who can read themselves are capable of checking books out of the library on subjects they don't know well, and they can learn alongside their child. It is a complete absurdity to assert that children aren't reading well because the schools are not getting enough government money and teachers aren't getting enough benefits. WTH?
The illiteracy rates in Detroit are due to PARENTAL FAILURE and nothing else.
Yeah...that's not entirely true. So unless you're somehow a rocket scientist with a great knowledge of European history and do genetics on the side, you need some assistance. Many home schoolers enroll in community college courses for areas that parents are unable to teach. Thus, they rely on the government. That's pretty much government help. Home schoolers also use libraries since their houses are probably not equipped with a full library. That's also government help.
Since home school families are most likely wealthier than the average family in Detroit, we can assume they live in better neighborhoods. So there is no need to worry about crime and their libraries will most likely be open...as well as those community colleges with more course offerings.
It's not only PARENTAL FAILURE. There's a lot more going on...
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.
