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.
Teachers are paid WAY too much in salaries plus benefits plus retirement benefits, as well. Almost all the taxpayer money goes to bloated school and admin staff salaries and benefits.
STOP the soft bigotry of low expectations for minorities, and get teachers who don't just warm a desk seat for increasingly higher pay that climbs according to years on the job instead of actual effectiveness.
I have to say, I am in partial agreement there. In some states teachers are overpaid.
But what is there about teaching - especially in cases where they are well paid - that generates a need to retire after 20 or 25 years? I understand it about the military; they get too old and they have been away from home for many years. Same with things like Department of State.
But teaching? No. I think teachers should teach as long as they like and qualify for a vested retirement just like almost everyone else - when they are 65 or 66.
Too often I talk to teachers who are in it simply for the early retirement and summers off. States are getting to where they cannot afford it. In some cases, like California, a teacher can retire with 105% of their salary! https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewb.../#124a57c56d3d
And Mississippi has the highest paid state superintendent of education in the nation. $300,000!
Texas has kids playing in a $70 million stadium. It was funded by tax payers, but what about the cost of those football programs and all those coaches and transportation and so forth? That is paid for by school districts.
I think we should all pay taxes, not get loopholes or refunds and receive better education, healthcare, eldercare, etc.[/QUOTE
We already spend the most money of any country in the world on education and healthcare, per pupil and patient. And neither our schools nor healthcare are the best in the world. These systems need better thought and better approaches, not more money.
I think we should all pay taxes, not get loopholes or refunds and receive better education, healthcare, eldercare, etc.
We already spend the most money of any country in the world on education and healthcare, per pupil and patient. And neither our schools nor healthcare are the best in the world. These systems need better thought and better approaches, not more money.
If we want to compare ourselves to other good countries, we actually need both.
I think we should all pay taxes, not get loopholes or refunds and receive better education, healthcare, eldercare, etc.[/QUOTE
We already spend the most money of any country in the world on education and healthcare, per pupil and patient. And neither our schools nor healthcare are the best in the world. These systems need better thought and better approaches, not more money.
Well, the healthcare is easy enough to fix. Move all the funding to preventative care, heading off problems before they become life-threatening. A lot of our healthcare goes to very expensive & invasive heroic measures @ the end of life - full-spectrum cancer treatment, cardiac transplants, lung transplants - when the outcomes are expensive & iffy - even if successful. Far more reasonable to focus on preventative care, making sure people exercise, eat healthy, & watching for problem areas that could develop into life-threatening crises.
That makes a marked change in how we deliver healthcare, of course. I'm sure there would be a great deal of resistance from the hospitals & surgical centers that specialize in high-stakes treatment.
It in no way proves they will, either. We already know that court-mandated UNLIMITED funding made not one bit of difference in the Kansas City Public Schools experiment.
Interesting article... and it was certainly an interesting experiment. However, that particular article fails to tell the full story.
Kansas City was forced to desegregate schools back in 1984 after a court ruling. The 'remedy' (ie: refurbishing the schools and turning them into magnet schools) was not actually given three go ahead until November 1986.
In 1995, when the court ruled against the arrangement that forced Missouri to fund efforts toward education equality and desegregation (Missouri v Jenkins), it is estimated that KC's radical changes to it's school district had only been in place 2- 3 years. Not the 10 years that the original article asserts.
When the experiment was effectively ended, at the court ruling, it was suggested that the 2-3 years was an inadequate time frame to truly see any positive changes, and had there been more time, it may have worked.
Not everything in the posted article is a falsehood, but the notion that the experiment took place for a full 10 years is not only improbable but impossible, based on the timeline of events that a little more research reveals.
Interesting article... and it was certainly an interesting experiment. However, that particular article fails to tell the full story.
Kansas City was forced to desegregate schools back in 1984 after a court ruling. The 'remedy' (ie: refurbishing the schools and turning them into magnet schools) was not actually given three go ahead until November 1986.
In 1995, when the court ruled against the arrangement that forced Missouri to fund efforts toward education equality and desegregation (Missouri v Jenkins), it is estimated that KC's radical changes to it's school district had only been in place 2- 3 years. Not the 10 years that the original article asserts.
When the experiment was effectively ended, at the court ruling, it was suggested that the 2-3 years was an inadequate time frame to truly see any positive changes, and had there been more time, it may have worked.
Not everything in the posted article is a falsehood, but the notion that the experiment took place for a full 10 years is not only improbable but impossible, based on the timeline of events that a little more research reveals.
The KC thing was never going to work. The school system was not targeted for education it was a job factory and nothing was going to happen that impacted the locals who held the jobs. So bad and weak teachers and incapable Principles got big raises but nothing was done that would actually improve the education received by the students. Just had much better paid employees and a bloated bureaucracy. They also added vastly to the transportation system to aid desegregation and way increased the pay of the drivers and cafeteria workers. Money went everywhere except to improve the education process.
The only good thing that happened was they built nice building though too many of them.
The KC thing was never going to work. The school system was not targeted for education it was a job factory and nothing was going to happen that impacted the locals who held the jobs. So bad and weak teachers and incapable Principles got big raises but nothing was done that would actually improve the education received by the students. Just had much better paid employees and a bloated bureaucracy. They also added vastly to the transportation system to aid desegregation and way increased the pay of the drivers and cafeteria workers. Money went everywhere except to improve the education process.
The only good thing that happened was they built nice building though too many of them.
Interesting. From what I've read, I'm inclined to agree with you. It sounds like a lot of $ went into state of the art facilities, which is all well and good, but there were no positive changes to the education itself. I did read that student to teacher ratios were reduced though. That's a good thing.
I believe in poor/struggling school districts, small class sizes in addition to extra educational assistance and life resources should be key.
Positive changes were made in the Jennings (MO) School District by the last superintendent that should be implemented in struggling school districts. She took the school from being provisionally accredited back to being fully accredited, even though it is still subpar to the wealthy school districts. That superintendant did a lot of excellent things that supported children's needs outside school in addition to their educational needs. Such a shame she ended up leaving. I think she was on the right track.
In some states, it actually does, primarily where ad valorem taxes are the principal means of financing public education. Parents who can afford to do so will locate their families in more well-to-do areas, which will have a higher tax base than less desirable areas. The local public schools in these more affluent areas tend to be better than those in less affluent areas precisely because of the higher tax base which yields greater tax revenue.
Parents who settle in these affluent areas are essentially volunteering to pay more in ad valorem tax in the hope that their children will benefit from attending what they deem to be superior school systems.
So, in jarring contrast to your statement, yes, in some places, the quality of the school districts and the real estate values within said districts are in fact closely related.
Not true, wealthy districts usually spend LESS per student that lower income ones. The achievement of a student is correlated with their home environment, the school itself actually doesn't play that big of a part. Many find this hard to believe but research is very consistent in proving this out. In other words, your wealthy district school isn't as special as you think - those districts basically ride on the coattails of the households.
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.
Shifting gears, changing emphasis
