December 29, 2005
Education Money Myth
Yet still the myth continues. There are still some groups that simply live and die spreading the myth that money = education. Sorry, but that's a complete lie, only designed to get more cash out of the taxpayers hands and into government. Of course, "It's for the Children."
Another lie-filled "advocacy" group has announced an astounding fact -- that poor counties in North Carolina are spending less money than rich counties on education. Their solution? Of course, to steal more money from productive citizens and give it to the "poor" counties.
MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL EDUCATION. It never has, and it never, ever will. There are ZERO studies that even suggest that any amount of increase of $1 or $1000 has ANY effect at all on education. None. Zero.
Increasing funding for education does have ONE effect: it steals money from the economy so that hard-working people get less for their work. It violates the North Carolina Constitution that says, "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are ... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor."
All government spending on education should be reduced to zero. EVERYONE will benefit tremendously -- well, except for the bureaucrats and "advocacy" groups.
Posted by: Ogre at
11:01 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I don't think you are entirely correct.
For example, would soldiers learn their skills if we zeroed out the military budget? Surely SOME money is necessary for operations...although more money does not guarantee squat.
I'm also reminded of America's history regarding education. In Massachusetts, for example, educational facilities were established from the gitgo. In South Carolina, only the white and well-heeled received a proper education. Consequently, there were more educated folks in Mass, and less in SC...although the few in SC may have received a better education than their northern counterparts. Maybe not though.
Everyone should be given tools and access, and ideally everyone could, one day, be given a first class education, even if it meant watching college courses on their TV or computer.
America needs more education, not less. We are ignorant enough, and crime is only getting worse.
Think different and better, not removal.
The current admin has squandered and squandered, and now want to cut important services to make up for their wrongheadedness.
If they simply gave back all they stole and diverted, we wouldn't have to even talk about cuts to programs.
Hi there!
Posted by: anonymoses at December 29, 2005 03:57 PM (ELJo9)
2
"There are ZERO studies" is poor English. Try "there are no studies" instead.
Thank you
Posted by: The Free Range Pedant at December 29, 2005 05:48 PM (5GlMm)
3
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Stop spending money on education? Are you mental?
You seem to have some sort of issue surrounding class and social strata as you mention "stealing" money from "productive" citizens and giving it to the poor..whoa horsey! That's what the income tax system is all about...everyone pays tax, it goes into a central fund and is then drawn back out for schools, hospitals, roads etc. That's the way it works, it's not about stealing.
Are you seriously suggesting reducing Government spending on education to zero? Where would the money for schools come from then? Maybe I'm not reading your post correctly but that's what I think you're saying. I have to say that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard, seriously, ever!
And as for your point that there have been no studies to show that spending money has any effect on education...that's nonsense! It doesn't take a report or a study or a rocket scientist to work out that if you have a school in a disadvantaged area where there is one teacher to 40 students and then a school in an affluent area that has one teacher for every 15 students that the pupils in the more affluent school are going to, in the main, have more opportunities educationally. Here in Ireland, there was a study done on one particular poorer suburb of Dublin and it showed that only three per cent of it's students went on to third level or college education compared to a more affluent suburb in Dublin where about 60 per cent of its students went on to college. That sure says something to me! (The study was done some years ago and I'm not sure if it's online so can't provide a link but I'll try to find something)
Investing money in education is the ONLY way forward for all countries. The more educated our people, ALL of our people, are the better our lives and our world will be. Apathy towards education is what is destroying our communities. As the last poster said, we need more investment in education, not less!
Posted by: Kaz at December 29, 2005 07:37 PM (bbfEz)
4
There is so much waste in the public education system that the details defy description.
One step to improving education is to see that children achieve the proper level of proficiency in reading. And the proven way to do this is through a coordinated series of basal readers. But the textbook lobbyists see to that the readers are republished every few years so that more money has to be shelled out--taxpayers' dollars, of course. Add to that the fact that many counties don't see to it that all the schools within any given system use the
same series of basal readers.
Furthermore, the stats are homeschoolers put to shame the proficiency levels of the public school system. And why is that? Effective homeschool parents grab ahold of a curriculum from a particular publisher and stick with it. The public system could take a lesson from that practice.
Remember the days of the
McGuffey Readers? Some of the greatest intellects of the previous century learned from those simple books.
Get rid of the bells and whistles, and kids will learn.
Posted by: Always On Watch at December 30, 2005 02:14 AM (6krEN)
5
Correction: the stats
on homeschoolers
Posted by: Always On Watch at December 30, 2005 02:15 AM (6krEN)
6
Thanks for all the comments, folks!
Anonymoses -- Would soldiers learn their skills with no budget? You betcha, without ANY doubt.
As for comparing today's society to that of 400 years ago, I don't think you can. Today, EVERYONE in America, including illegals, felons, criminals, and the so-called "poor" ALL have the opportunity for education, without any exception at all.
Government has very few and limited purposes. Anything else it attempts, it does wrong. Education is NOT government's business. They are complete and utter failures at it.
Kaz -- nope. I'm not mental at all. Government should not spend one dollar on education. Do you really think for even one second that there would be no education without government? Seriously? Imagine what would happen if ALL government-run education shut down tomorrow -- it would be awesome. No less people would be educated. In fact, I think MORE would be educated, and without any doubt, the quality of education would skyrocket.
As for your example on spending, in fact your illustration is not actually true. Have 15 students for 1 teacher versus 40 students for one teacher has absolutely no effect on the education. Being raised in a so-called "poor" neighborhood has MUCH more effect than on the money spent on the education.
And yes, Smokey, you're right on my thinking. Government stinks at educating people. The free market works infinitely better and always will.
You bet, AoW. "Dick and Jane" taught millions to read. Why can't we use it now? Because the government monopoly will not let people. Follow the insane amounts of money, people, follow the money.
Posted by: Ogre at December 30, 2005 09:33 PM (s2+Ck)
7
I think the Federal Government should stay out of education because it is unconsitutional to have the Federal Governement run state programs. However, education creates more productive working citzens. What would happen Ogre if no one was required to learn history or civics?
Posted by: Mindflame at December 31, 2005 07:21 PM (SlODe)
8
What would happen? People would learn it anyway. Do you really think that no one would learn history? How many people do you know that would be willing to teach what they know to others?
I'm not saying there should be no organized education -- just that the government shouldn't be doing it.
Posted by: Ogre at December 31, 2005 07:41 PM (s2+Ck)
9
Oh, and I KNOW for a fact that if the government got out of the way, many classical education schools would immediately open up. I'd open one within a week myself.
Posted by: Ogre at December 31, 2005 07:42 PM (s2+Ck)
10
IÂ’m curious. You support federalism, right Ogre? So letÂ’s say that the Government in Washington stayed out of education and the Department of Education was disbanded tonight. Would you not support the right of the states to have this program if their voters divided on it even if you apposed it for your own state?
Posted by: Mindflame at January 03, 2006 04:27 AM (SlODe)
11
Sure -- because I could move out of my state and to one that believed in the free market.
Posted by: Ogre at January 03, 2006 10:47 AM (s2+Ck)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 14, 2005
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools
Are a total mess and a nightmare. But if you live anywhere near here, you'd know that. Of course, if you live elsewhere and support a strong socialist idea of an education system, then you worship and adore the Charlotte-Mecklenburg System (CMS).
A year ago, a LARGE number of parents tried to secede from the school district. They wanted to break the gigantic, massively unresponsive school system up into smaller, more manageable districts. Of course, since the North Carolina General Assembly is Democrat, there was NO way they would succeed because it would require government to shrink.
So instead, in a miserably feeble attempt to appease these parents, the Democrat-controlled school board set up a "task force" to "study" the problem. The results of the "task force" are in. And yes, once again, I could have saved the state millions of dollars on the task force -- because the results were known before the task force even met for the first time.
more...
Posted by: Ogre at
03:03 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Ogre why are you so against public education? Despite its unavoidable problems, public schools and state universities are a clear social benefit. Even from an economic point of view, public education must be considered a positive externality. That is it is good for the free market in the long term.
Posted by: Brian at December 14, 2005 06:36 PM (qe/Un)
2
Primarily because the current system of government education has absolutely nothing to do with educating anyone. The sole purpose of those in the administration of school systems is to protect themselves and obtain more money.
State Universities are even worse.
We now have a system that forces students to learn. Why? Because the school system gets more money the more students they have enrolled. It doesn't matter if they actually educate the students, they just have to be enrolled.
I know it's not a popular view right now, but it is true that school is NOT for everyone. What's good for the free market is to allow the free markets to compete and run schools and educate those who want to be educated!
Posted by: Ogre at December 14, 2005 07:03 PM (/k+l4)
3
If you honestly believe that neither students nor society as a whole gains from public education then we are in basic disagreement. I agree school is not for everyone but you must concede that generally people today are better off with an education. We force students to stay in school because they are not mature enough to make that decision. They can drop out at 16 if they so choose. When I was 10 years old and somebody asked me if i wanted to sit in school all day or go play basketball i would have no doubt chosen to go have fun. However, that would have been the absolute wrong choice and i am glad i wasnt in a position to make it. I went to public school for 12 years and spent 1 year at a state college and I know for sure that I am better off and when I graduate society will be better off as well. The willing and able to pay analogy is incorrect. Everybody wants to be educated on some level but not everybody can afford it. Why should only the rich be taught? Education is not in the same category as cars or boats or other luxuries that people buy based on their willingness to pay.
Posted by: Brian at December 14, 2005 08:54 PM (qe/Un)
4
Up here in New Jersey we have over 600 different school districts. Every town has one (sometimes two if the secondary schools are regional and the elementary are not). The cost of education funded by local property taxes has grown such that regionalization and the loss of local input is seriously being considered. Proponents envision the consolidation of services as a savings but forget the layers of beaurocracy that would insulate the local parent from the leadership of the schools.
Posted by: joated at December 14, 2005 11:15 PM (M7kiy)
5
Brian -- I never said education of the public was a bad thing -- but the current system of monopolistic government education masquerading as "public" education is total crap.
It has absolutely nothing to do with rich vs. poor. In Charlotte, the "poor" get upwards of $10,000 per student spent on "public" education. Those that are better off get LESS spent on them.
I reiterate -- the current system has quite literally NOTHING to do with educating students and zero interest in any sort of education of anyone. The current system in place is ONLY interested in cash money.
And Joated, I hope you stay away from consolidation. ANY sort of government consolidation is a very, very bad thing. It takes control away from the people and gives more and more control, power, and money to government -- which is always a bad thing.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:51 AM (uSCkp)
6
Ogre, when is the last time you were in school? I was educated, my brothers were educated, my friends were educated. If public education is such a damn cash cow than why did i have 30 kids in my classes in high school and why is my dorm room falling apart around me. Who is pocketing all of this money? As far as rich v poor, you must agree that if all education was private than the lower class would have a very hard time affording school.
Posted by: Brian at December 15, 2005 01:16 AM (qe/Un)
7
The state of our public education system in Palm Beach County is faltering every day. It truly is scary. I always swore I would keep my kids in public schools, as I went to them, yet my kids are in private. I always swore my kids would go to public high school... yet last month, I was so appalled by things I'm seeing in our newspaper about our school district, that I am for the first time considering private high school as well.
It pisses me off.
And our school district is something like the 5th largest in the nation. It is so big, and unable to think outside the box, that when Wilma hit, the schools north of Southern Blvd (Iknow you know the area) were fine, but those south were seriously damaged, So... ALL the schools in PBC stayed CLOSED until those south of Southern could open. 2 weeks of education EVERYONE lost because our district is so big.
It's a sad state of affairs down here too.
Posted by: Bou at December 15, 2005 03:58 AM (iHxT3)
8
Where is the money, Brian? CMS is on a "search" for a new superintendent. His salary will be at LEAST $350,000.00. And that's not counting benefits, automatic retirement, cash accounts, company car, etc. The money is wasted by the administration.
In Charlotte, they also waste billions on buildings. Instead of making one blueprint and just building every school that way, they spend literally millions for every new school on architects to make the school unique. Doing so also makes the buildings massively expensive.
And no, if all education was privately-RUN, then the rich and poor alike could afford it. Tax credits would allow everyone the exact same opportunity.
For some reason the nationwide trend recently was to join all school districts in larger districts. Everywhere it's happened (Palm Beach, Charlotte) it's made a mess of the schools. I wonder why they think smaller classrooms are good (there's zero evidence it is), but smaller districts are not (with much evidence they are).
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:15 AM (uSCkp)
9
I don't get this 'smaller classroom' push either. It's a nice to have, but I went to school with 28 kids in a class.
My kids go to a small Catholic school that has between 26-30 kids in a class. I wish it were smaller as it is A LOT of work for the teachers in the lower grades (the difference between 24 1st graders and 28 is a lot), BUT that said the class is very organized and poor behavior cannot be tolerated. My kids are doing fine there, overall.
Posted by: Bou at December 15, 2005 12:44 PM (iHxT3)
10
The smaller classroom myth (sounds like a book title, maybe I should write that) is just a way to get more money. There's zero evidence that having a smaller class size increases learning, especially from 40 students to 30 students.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:57 PM (/k+l4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 12, 2005
Melting Pot vs. Salad
Here's just another example of anti-Americanism that's snuck into the government-run monopolistic education system. I'm sure it's not new news to those on the "inside" of education, but I hadn't heard of it before.
It used to be that America was The Great Melting Pot. The idea was that there was a unique American culture. This American culture was a great culture -- this was one of the primary reasons that people came to this country -- to join in with freedom, capitalism, and rugged individualism.
As people came to the country, they learned how this culture worked. They worked hard to learn the English language and to assimilate into the culture so they could effectively participate and work together and be a part of this superior culture.
Now I'm told this is all different. Apparently in education circles, including the horrible government-run system, there is no longer any melting pot. America now is supposed to be considered a "tossed salad."
Instead of joining in and becoming part of the unique, superior culture, immigrants are supposed to transplant their own culture and NOT adjust at all to America.
They are expected to bring their own traditions and culture (like macho drunk driving) and not only not assimilate, but to reject the American culture as inferior to their own, thereby creating a large group of different cultures that are specifically NOT American.
This was tried most recently in France. How'd that work out for them?
Importing various different cultures with ZERO assimilation is simply a recipe for total disaster. Cultures clash -- they ALWAYS have, and they always will. By teaching people that diversity is good, just for diversity's sake are plain wrong.
This forced diversity brings us things like saying it's a good experience for students to be in classrooms with convicted sex offenders (as is the case in Charlotte-Mecklenburg skills). This "tossed salad" brings us dangerous gangs (like MS-13) that are accepted as a different, diverse group of "undocumented workers."
This new "enlightenment" of mandated diversity provides us with pedophiles accepted as "alternative." It has brought us generations of welfare families that demand and expect everything to be given to them.
The tossed salad has wilted and grown moldy. It is nothing more than a potful of smelly garbage. Unfortunately, I think it may be too late for America to regain it's superior culture.
Posted by: Ogre at
01:04 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Have you ever seen a salad that was in the fridge too long? It turns into a big gooey mess. Have you ever seen when a melting pot sits too long? It turns into a hardened cohesive lump of material.
Keep that in mind when thinking of how you would like your country to be? Wilted, runny and disgusting or Hard, unified and strong.
Posted by: Contagion at December 12, 2005 01:55 PM (Q5WxB)
Posted by: Ogre at December 12, 2005 01:58 PM (/k+l4)
3
Sigh. I'll have to make sure I teach my kids it is the melting pot...
Posted by: vw bug at December 12, 2005 04:15 PM (SCN6v)
4
You're going to, because the government isn't.
Posted by: Ogre at December 12, 2005 04:26 PM (/k+l4)
5
One more arguement for homeschooling.....
Posted by: Kari at December 12, 2005 05:48 PM (/HZs0)
6
Most certainly, Kari -- a strong argument!
Posted by: Ogre at December 12, 2005 05:56 PM (/k+l4)
7
hee hee hee, he said "tossed salad" hee hee hee
Posted by: Machelle at December 12, 2005 06:23 PM (ZAyoW)
8
You tossed your what, Machelle?
Posted by: Ogre at December 12, 2005 06:37 PM (/k+l4)
9
I think that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. Naturally, people from other cultures, new to America are going to stick together and try to help one another, just as our ancestors did. And it's not a bad thing to celebrate some of the things from their native country. If you think about our traditional holiday meals, you'll realize that a lot of us still celebrate our ancestral heritage with food.
To become a true American you MUST adopt American traditions, ideals and values. You must learn the American language and our history. It is absolutely wrong to discourage imigrants from doing these things. It isolates them, and prevents them from ever feeling that they really belong, or are even wanted here.
There is no reason new imigrants can't become true Americans and still celebrate the good and meaninful things about their heritage.
Posted by: Patty-Jo at December 12, 2005 07:39 PM (tIPJZ)
10
Exactly right, Patty-Jo -- but that IS the opposite that is being taught in schools. This is the current result of diversity being more important than, well, anything else in social engineering, I mean, education.
Posted by: Ogre at December 12, 2005 07:47 PM (/k+l4)
11
Can you tell me what a "true American" is? Cherokee? Mohegan? British?
Posted by: M D R at January 03, 2006 09:48 PM (7smj9)
12
A "true American" is not defined by their historical origins.
Posted by: Ogre at January 03, 2006 10:02 PM (s2+Ck)
13
This is a really dumb comment. First of all who ever said America is the USA??? Let's not forget that there is a Northern and Asouthern Part to the continent. Second, all these imigrants are the one creatiating lots of revenue for this country and making it interesting. They are a economical, political and social force and many politiciand rely on their votes. Third, Since when are "Americans" native of this country to begin??. Lastly,I can see that our unity creates a sense of xenophobia. " American people" have never truly had the sense of union that Latinos, Indians, Chinesse ect have installed in their culture. Therefore, you fear because Amrica had always been told to be superior than others. Yet,Without those minorities and imigrants "America" is invisible.
Posted by: Dayanna at March 05, 2006 07:22 PM (Ffvoi)
14
Ummm...yeah, you're right -- that was a dumb comment. The "A" in USA stands for "America."
Posted by: Ogre at March 05, 2006 09:04 PM (CyQ4M)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 08, 2005
NC Teachers
The Charlotte Observer has
an editorial a
news story with the following headline:
Keeping N.C. teachers will take more than pay, licensing efforts
As usual, the headline is rather misleading. The news article doesn't mention any ideas by anyone for actually doing anything OTHER than giving more cash and relaxing licensing requirements.
Instead, the article focuses on the lack of teachers, the various school districts that cannot hire enough, and the various cash incentives and bonuses that are being used to attempt to attract teachers.
The easy solution is the one that's overlooked -- if the state can't find enough teachers, stop trying. Seriously. There's no reason that the state should be the only provider of education. The state should simply give up, perhaps starting at the high school level -- just stop providing high school, let the market take over, and give tax credits to anyone with school-age children.
Of course, the politicians are way too entrenched to ever give up any power, so that's not going to happen.
If you cannot attract employees with cash, try another option -- give the damn teachers some authority. Change their working conditions so THEY are in charge of the classroom, not the children.
Allow teachers to dictate what will happen in the classroom. Allow teachers to throw children out of the classroom when they are disruptive. Don't send convicted felonious sex offenders into the classrooms with the teachers. Allow teachers to arm themselves against the gangs and violence. EXPEL students who are involved in felonious assaults and gang wars on school grounds.
But then, you'd have to get rid of students who won't learn -- and that would reduce the federal funding -- so that's not going to happen, either.
So what's the solution? Take your own children and get them out of the government school system and let it collapse under it's own weight.
Posted by: Ogre at
10:05 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree with you on giving teachers more power. They should have the say on what goes on in their classroom. I also think they should allow bus drivers to kick off trouble kids and make them walk home even if they are on the road/interstate!
Posted by: Arbitratorofall at December 08, 2005 12:34 PM (/k+l4)
2
The buses are another issue -- if we weren't transporting students 30-40 miles to get to school, they wouldn't even be an issue. But the Mecklenburg School is vehemently opposed to people actually having ANY freedom of association, so they continue to use forced busing -- and always will as long as Democrats run that board.
Posted by: Ogre at December 08, 2005 12:42 PM (/k+l4)
3
Fundamentally public education has a number of issues. Allowing teachers to have very little authority is a big problem.
Another issue is there is common understanding of the purpose of education. Why are kids who cause trouble in school? To give them an education! What does that mean? Well they are suppose to learn. Are they learning? Well no.
People have been trying to fix education for several decades, and things have only gotten worse. What is the line about doing something you have been doing, but hoping for different results.
As you say at the end of your post, the answer for any parent who can is to get their children out of the public schools.
Posted by: Henry Cate at December 14, 2005 11:50 PM (3c3/D)
4
Here in Charlotte, we have convicted felonious sex offenders in class -- so others can experience diversity. And the school board sees nothing wrong with that. Anyone else want to volunteer to be a teacher?
Thanks for stopping along, Henry!!
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:54 AM (uSCkp)
5
The teachers' unions are the people who lobby to restrict their authority in the classroom. It gives them an excuse to ask for lower class sizes and more money.
Maybe all the teachers in NC are up here in Illinois. There is a surplus here who can't get work. The perks here must be better and they can't be fired.
Posted by: Lennie at December 15, 2005 03:24 AM (3eRXR)
6
I know a number of teachers that have quit here in North Carolina, and a couple who haven't. They all say that the working conditions are just horrible. They have zero authority over anything that happens in the classroom, including classroom discipline. They can remove no one from their classrooms, short of witnessing and actual felony, and even if that happens, the student will only be suspended a couple days. Seriously.
And we don't have unions here -- that's why we don't have a surplus -- the free market works better without unions.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:19 AM (uSCkp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
50kb generated in CPU 0.0193, elapsed 0.081 seconds.
89 queries taking 0.0693 seconds, 225 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.