- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 26, 2010 at 6:57 pm #597122
hooper1961MemberI think we can agree that government resources are limited.
After listening to a retired High School Principal I was appalled at enormous amount of education resources spent on 1 to 2% of the kids many of whom are so challenged that the cost benefit ratio makes this spending not productive. Re-directing these resources to the appropriate level of support (ie not high cost PHD education specialist but use lower cost TA/s) for the 1 to 2% and then re-directing the balance to facilitate the better education of the vast majority of kids would be far more productive use of the limited resource.
November 26, 2010 at 7:15 pm #709239
DPMemberGood to see you contributing more, hoop, even if you do have a fondness for red herring.
I might be willing to agree with you philosophically on this, but you’re going to be hard pressed to defend the point with many folks here, not to mention the attorney general and the state supreme court. The law guarantees equal access to education for all, so putting one kid (albeit a challenged one) with a TA and another kid with a regular teacher is going to sound suspiciously like “separate but equal,” which pretty much went out with segregation.
But let’s leave aside the legal question and consider this from a more personal angle. Suppose you’re the parent of a challenged kid. How would the Hooper Plan sound to you?
November 26, 2010 at 7:22 pm #709240
hooper1961Membermy bad we do have infinite resources. spending $50,000 to attempt to educate 1 kid versus $5,000 for another kid does not sound equal to me!
November 26, 2010 at 7:57 pm #709241
JanSParticipantso..are you saying that we should treat them more challenged as disposable…not good enough? Let’s just get by with them? I’m just asking….
again…don’t come back with “my bad”…seriously tell us how you’d feel about it if you were the parent of that challenged but teachable child….and were told that the school was only going to make a minimal effort with minimum resources….
November 26, 2010 at 8:02 pm #709242
DPMemberI hear what you’re saying, hooper. You are right, we do not have infinite resources. Especially now, with the defeat of 1098, we might be looking at making a lot of pretty cruel choices soon.
I do believe your numbers are off a bit. $10,000 per student per year is more like it for Washington State public schools, though admittedly that’s averaged out to include all students, including the costliest (i.e., most challenged) ones as well as the most gifted ones, who also draw a higher-than-average amount of teaching resources.
Conservative source: http://tinyurl.com/wa-school-spending
Anyway, I think the cost of educating a challenged kid is perceived by society in much the same way as providing medical care for someone with a serious health problem. It’s not something people generally view in terms of “Are we getting a good value for our money?”
You might say that healthy insured people “finance” the care of sick and uninsured ones, just as low-maintenance students finance the high-maintenance ones. That’s how the education system got the way it is, with more money spent on some kids and less on others. I think people are generally ok with that system, even when money’s a little tight.
Of course, this is not an iron law or anything, but it is worth taking into consideration whenever you try to tackle social problems like how to best fund medical care or education.
As Jan pointed out, you didn’t answer my question about what you’d do if you had a challenged kid in public school yourself . . .
November 26, 2010 at 8:32 pm #709243
hooper1961MemberMy wife and I were fortunate to have a typical kid. We did take him outside of restaurants when he acted up so as not to disturb other restaurant patrons.
The simple fact there are not limitless resources and choices will need to be made. Forcing School Districts to send challenged kids to specialized programs out of state is expensive enough and then paying for the parents to fly back and forth to see their child is over the line.
And many parents of challenged kids abuse the SD’s with threats of lawsuits that further adds to society cost. Maybe loser pay would discourage frivolous lawsuits.
I have not said do not spend money on challenged kids many of whom with added assistance can be taught basic life skills and become productive members of society. It is the 1 to 2% that are simply too challenged that alternatives need to explored.
November 26, 2010 at 8:57 pm #709244
SpeakLoudMemberI would argue that an amount per child should be allocated regardless of ability-isn’t that ‘equal’ if $8,000 per year is what the SD applies then that’s what each child gets-challenged, typical, genius no difference. PHD’s have no place or need in the classroom-the law says that each child has the right to access education-not have a personnaly designed, best possible scenario of an education-that’s what a private school offers you.
That’s what fundraising is for-the state can’t make up for each child’s level of equality-life is not fair-and it sucks-and all children are paying the price for a shitty system-I guess in that respect they all have equal access to crap-so it all works out in the end…..
November 27, 2010 at 12:39 am #709245
BonnieParticipantHooper, I’m so happy that your child is a typical child. It makes life so much easier for you.
November 27, 2010 at 4:49 pm #709246
OliverMemberRed herring, indeed. Slicing dollars per-pupil has never made sense.
“It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders.” WA State Constitution, Art. IX, Section I.
The per-pupil “method” of determining how much money to allocate to a school has never been an accurate measure of the cost of what it actually takes to provide a public education, whether we are talking about special education or general education. This is why the courts have ordered the state to determine the actual costs of providing all children with the knowledge and skills set forth in the State’s high academic standards and to fully fund that actual cost with stable and dependable State sources.
http://www.waschoolexcellence.org/
A healthy democracy depends on educated citizens. – Horace Mann, the father of American public education.
November 27, 2010 at 5:37 pm #709247
DPMemberGood observations, Oliver. I’m going to study that “school excellence” page.
If you get the chance, you might want to edit your post to clarify that Mr. Mann wasn’t actually talking about sex ed.
—D.P.
November 27, 2010 at 9:12 pm #709248
dawsonctParticipantI say tie the cost of educating our citizens to the cost of incarcerating them. Per-pupil spending can’t be exceeded by per-prisoner spending.
—
Make a 4-year college degree free for Wa. State residents. The taxes collected on the higher salaries and greater productivity of our college-educated citizens will more than pay for it, especially when you consider how much LESS we will spend on imprisoning each other.
November 27, 2010 at 11:11 pm #709249
hooper1961Memberyes we spend way to much incarcerating people. the singapore system would be much more cost effective.
November 28, 2010 at 12:56 am #709250
zerodacusMemberI’m going to have to chime in with Hooper here, a quick study of just the two high schools here in West Seattle, shows (17) Special Ed. instructors at both schools (and I mean at each school, 17 each), and approx. (8) bi-lingual teachers each, the middle schools about the same. As well as several postions I couldn’t figure out, one at WS is just listed as ‘Coach Dick’. Where to begin looking at cuts, hmmm. Before I get beaten to death concerning special ed., let me say that I was raised with a severly mentally and physically challenged sister (blind, deaf, and severly retarded, and yes I know ‘retarded’ is not currently politically correct)who died at the age of thirteen. She went to a special program at one seattle school, one, she was bussed, and yes, it did raise the quality of her life, but, it was one school. I’ll stop here, and not begin to to battle about providing state and city run services for illegals.
November 28, 2010 at 2:34 am #709251
JanSParticipantcould you expand that last sentence. It’s on the table now. Exactly what state and city run services are being given to “illegals”? Specifics, please…
November 28, 2010 at 3:02 am #709252
tanyar23ParticipantSome thoughts on undocumented immigrants….funny comic…
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/first-thanksgiving.html
November 28, 2010 at 3:08 am #709253
JoBParticipantthis topic just plain makes me sad…
November 28, 2010 at 3:11 am #709254
tanyar23Participant@Job…I agree. Before you know it, some will say that our children should be doing labor in some coal mine because they aren’t doing their fair share for the education they get.
November 28, 2010 at 3:51 am #709255
BonnieParticipantSo zerodacus are you saying that all special ed kids should be put into one special school to save costs? Kind of out of sight, out of mind? That is the way it used to be not that long ago.
November 28, 2010 at 4:48 am #709256
OliverMemberLet’s say there are two schools in a community. We’ll call them Lafayette and West Seattle. They each have 100 students and the state gives each school $1 per student. It costs $75 to operate the building at West Seattle and $80 at Lafayette. That means WS has has $25 left over for everything else and Lafayette has $20 left over. And “left over” means teacher salaries, text books, and so-called enrichment (arts, music, foreign language). WS has students that have language barriers and came to kindergarten with less access to pre-k readiness programs. So, prioritization means all of the $25 of the “left over” goes to address those issues. Lafayette doesn’t (pre-new boundaries) have a population of recent immigrants and low income families, so $20 of left over can go to enrichment and advanced learning. Lafayette also has a strong PTA which raises $50 extra to fund additional programs; WS does not have that luxury. WS enrollment drops to 10 fewer students and now only gets $80 from the state and it still takes $75 to operate the building. WS now has $5 left over, meaning there is no money to fund anything but the most critical needs. At the same time, enrollment at Lafayette increases by 10, so it now has an additional $10 for additional enrichment. Overtime, the disparities and funding gaps increase as long as we continue to focus on “per-pupil” spending.
It’s an over-simplicfication, for sure, but easily demonstrates how per-pupil funding is anything but an equal measure and in no way addresses actual costs.
November 28, 2010 at 9:38 am #709257
dawsonctParticipantThe point also (inadvertently?) made by your scenario is the argument against community control of the schools.
Education is too important for the NATION to leave to the whims or resources of individual communities.
—
Hoop, regarding post #12: I’m always amused that people like you, who don’t trust our government to do ANYTHING right, suddenly think it is infallible in regard to the judicial system.
November 28, 2010 at 3:48 pm #709258
JoBParticipantNovember 28, 2010 at 5:27 pm #709259
OliverMemberNo Dawson,the point is that ALL schools in our community should have adequate funds for programs that the particular school needs as determined by its population. In the above scenario, WS doesn’t have enough funds to continue the programs its students need because the per pupil funding method does not evaluate what the actual cost of any particular school is. It’s not a whim to give a school sufficient funding and the flexibility to use that funding to serve the needs of the students in that building.
November 28, 2010 at 6:43 pm #709260
hooper1961Memberdawsonct – the judicial system in our country is extremely expensive, inconsistent and is also in need of fixing (but attorneys make too much money on the existing system and the many elect-eds are attorneys). the point of singapore is that once convicted the consequences are known and very severe.
regarding school funding it is how the money is spent that needs to be evaluated. spending horrendous sums on the 1 to 2% that (from SpeakLoud) the law says that each child has the right to access education-not have a personally designed, best possible scenario of an education-that’s what a private school offers you.
it is time society (and the voters have demanded this via saying no more taxes) really evaluate how public dollars are being spent.
November 28, 2010 at 7:18 pm #709261
DPMemberPer hooper:
it is time society (and the voters have demanded this via saying no more taxes) really evaluate how public dollars are being spent.
—Agreed. But in the interest of full disclosure, would everyone who has a bright idea for slashing state services or employee pay, kindly tell us how they voted on I-1098?
Hello. My name’s Thurston, and I voted against an income tax on the rich. My idea for balancing the state budget is to cut school lunch programs for poor kids.
I’m Lovey, and I also voted against taxing the rich. My idea for saving money is to cut funds for vaccination programs and pre-natal care. Oh. And I’m also going to buy my next fur coat in Oregon, so I won’t have to pay sales tax.
—At least I get where Thurston and Lovey are coming from on this. As for all the middle- and low-income people out there who also voted against I-1098, I am truly baffled.
EPIC FAIL-ure of reasoning there, folks.
November 28, 2010 at 7:39 pm #709262
hooper1961Memberpandora’s box and trust
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.