Public Schools

[ghost_stalker]

I have thought for a long time that money is mismanaged for public schools, and that all publicschools are not equal. People who live in higher income areas have better schools that teach more classes and give more opportunities for their already wealthy children. While low income schools teach less classes and that classes that they teach are far less advanced than the classes of the high income school, and since the classes are far less advanced there is less chance of poorer students getting into higher schooling.

With this system the rich become richer and the poor remain poor due to lack of opportunity.

I believe that all public schools should recieve equal funding per student nationwide, to end this cycle.
I also believe that the students should be able to choose thier education media. (such as traditional high-school, internet classes, and classes by mail) And all areas of study should be readily availbe to all student.
However I do not believe in using public money for private schooling or that certain higher income people should be able to pay more for facilities.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: ghost_stalker I believe that all public schools should recieve equal funding per student nationwide, to end this cycle.

How do you propose to accomplish this? Most school districts are locally funded. You gonna give more money from Washington for poorer districts? Or are you gonna confiscate some from the Beverly Hillbillies?

Quote by: ghost_stalker I also believe that the students should be able to choose thier education media. (such as traditional high-school, internet classes, and classes by mail) And all areas of study should be readily availbe to all student.

You gonna leave these decisions up tho the students? All areas? Like Xbox gaming? Like creating porno films?

Quote by: ghost_stalker However I do not believe in using public money for private schooling or that certain higher income people should be able to pay more for facilities.

Not sure what you are driving at here. Do you mean that you would not agree to allow for private schools to receive money from any government entity? Including Pell grants and Federal loans to universities? You do not believe that "higher income" people should be given the right to buy a higher cost education for their kids? Keep every one at the same doofus level?

Not tryin' to put words in your mouth, just tryin to understand your thesis...

[ghost_stalker]

Im never that gooding at starting topics just replying to them.

I propose that taxes that local areas charge should be instaed govermant taxes. And a federal agency would assign an eqaul amount of allocated funds per student. Then public school that the student attends would get the money.

Also I was only talking about k-12 schooling.

Not sure what you are driving at here. Do you mean that you would not agree to allow for private schools to receive money from any government entity? Including Pell grants and Federal loans to universities? You do not believe that "higher income" people should be given the right to buy a higher cost education for their kids? Keep every one at the same doofus level?

Every student would have equal oppurtunity to classes, because only goernment funding for schools would be allowed.
I think that if the wealthy can afford to send thier student to private school they should have to pay full price and the government woulnd not pay anything for the wealthy to go to a private school

[SteveA]

Let me see if I understand the overall function:

Since we seem to have troubles getting public education results in some areas up to a point that's equal with other areas, we should pull other areas down to make them equal?

As far as I know government is doing its best to raise educational results up in areas where the are lower. I don't believe it's intentional, just part of the weaknesses in the system.

In California, for example, we spend around $10,500/year per student (I'm certain it's higher now, because that was a few years ago). Many other states spend less but have better results. Should we still take money from California and give it to other states anyway, because California already gets to spend more on education? Or are you saying we should penalize schools that do well and pay schools to do worse?

I know these types of programs sound great on paper but they all have the same underlying problem when you try to enforce equality - not only is it easier to pull people down, so usually the overall results end up being worse, but you remove the benefit people receive by excelling and pay people to underperform, with things becoming a race to the bottom.

If you're going to encourage schools to be successful, you need to allow for the natural incentives schools and students should have to do better, not artificially punish some area for having a good education system and reward another for doing poorly.

We have a system that attempts to create equality in so many ways that there's little incentive to excel at something, though the costs when people don't are still born by everyone.

[tman_ndsu08]

How about we just end public schools and simplify the whole process?

[SteveA]

I put other, because though I do feel people should have some assistance in getting an education, I don't believe it's a right or entitlement that requires police to enforce. Private assistance and charities can help, even if it's just to the extent that they help other people learn how to learn for themselves.

Though I believe in limited government, I don't think there's anything inappropriate for people having their local government maintain some libraries either.

It's the entitlement view that's harmful, not the assistance. Though maybe assistance tends to breed an entitlement view. I don't know.

[Athena]

Quote by: ghost_stalker I have thought for a long time that money is mismanaged for public schools, and that all publicschools are not equal. People who live in higher income areas have better schools that teach more classes and give more opportunities for their already wealthy children. While low income schools teach less classes and that classes that they teach are far less advanced than the classes of the high income school, and since the classes are far less advanced there is less chance of poorer students getting into higher schooling. With this system the rich become richer and the poor remain poor due to lack of opportunity. I believe that all public schools should recieve equal funding per student nationwide, to end this cycle. I also believe that the students should be able to choose thier education media. (such as traditional high-school, internet classes, and classes by mail) And all areas of study should be readily availbe to all student. However I do not believe in using public money for private schooling or that certain higher income people should be able to pay more for facilities.

I believe that public education is for the good of the public and that equality in education is pretty fundamental. A goal of democracy is to enable the most people to give their best.
But before we can have an education that advances civilization, we need to educate everyone about what democracy is all about. We use to know, but since education for technology, we have forgotten and preverted our democracy.

The civil war could have been prevented if we had one education system for the whole country. Here I am speaking of liberal education. That doesn't make sense when education is education for technology, because most citizens will never have a need for that education. It is a waste of humanity to prepare everyone in the nation for a technological society without a heart and soul.

PS. it is also possible to bring peace to the Israelis and Palestinians. Just have them work together on a history book and than teach all children the same history. Not the Jews teaching their children history from their point of view and Palestinains teaching their children from their point of view. What complete human folly to do as Israel has done!

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

There are several problems with equal funding for all schools based on student numbers only.

1: Schools tend to spend money advertising for students so that they can get more money. this detracts from the purpose of the money.

2: Competition between schools is removed because there is no accountability for results. If a school receives money irrelevant of its abilities, then the children lose out with poorer education. Also poor teachers tend to always find positions in the education system when they should be removed.

3: Schools will tend to focus on localised curriculum reflecting the racial base of the area. This leads to disparity of results.

4: Wealthier suberbs will subsidise a school to attract the better teachers by giving a school a higher wage account. This will remove quality teachers from poorer neighbourhoods leading to a revisit of point 2

5: Finding based on pupil numbers alone will lead to school zoning because certain schools will pull more students than others otherwise. To keep an equal number of students across the board, the state will impose rules and regulations on where your children may go to school based on address only. This once again removes competition and accountability from schools and teachers.

I believe that a system of bulk funding is more appropriate as it enables a school to utilise its funding in the manner best befitting its success. This may be an offering of higher wages to attract better teachers to raise the overall level of the school so that more parents wish their children to attend, through to expenditure on unique facilities allowing schools to target special interest groups such as sports, music, art etc. Bulk funding would also promote effective financial management on the school board in that they would need to run their school like a business rather than a state funded money hole. This promotes accountability, school pride and therefore achievement.