Save the cheerleaders...

There are options for keeping school activities afloat, Margie and the easiest is to get the rest of the gifted student parents together and pass the hat. It might require passing some changes in local law to keep donations out of the general fund, or you may have to get the school to set up some sort of pay-as-you-participate set-up (like for a field trip, but instead for debate or band or whatever) but it's do-able.

My high school didn't offer AP classes when I went through, so I took college classes instead. And lots of our activities were paid for by us students out of pocket.

I have no qualms about paying for schools. None whatsoever. And yes we picked our home's location in no small part based on the performance of the school district. The school district here has a reputation for thrift (they remodel when possible rather than build new, some schools like my daughter's have no bus service, things like that). I am constantly writing small checks for field trips etc. If that makes me a snot, then so be it. I look at it as an investment in my daughters' future.

It's when I see public money spent on idiotic sh!t which has no direct bearing on education that I get riled up. About 15 years ago, the Charleston school district decided they had outgrown the main admin building and that it had mold problems which made the employees sick (the irony of this will be apparent in a moment). There's no shortage of office space around here, there were a few complete office buildings for sale etc but the school board voted to buy a new piece of land and plop a brand new $15 million building on it. The school board's meeting room is, in a word, opulent. This in a district where some of the downtown schools had big mold problems and the mobile classrooms (doublewides) were crumbling. Of course the schools out in Mount Pleasant (Yuppietown) look like something out of Architectural Digest but still have a less than stellar graduation rate. BTW: when house hunting we purposely avoided Charleston County because of their poor track record of school related decisions and subsequent abysmal graduation rates.

Now that things are getting tight, they are considering selling the Taj Mahal (its local name) to raise money to cover the projected budget shortfall. I can't say how much that would piss me off if I lived in that school district.

Hey, Baxter: As far as public schools educating 'just enough to get by and to indoctrinate them as automatons', well you need to look at some of my kid's 6th grade homework. I am a product of this public school system as well. Do I come across as an automaton?

Jensenman wrote: It's when I see public money spent on idiotic sh!t which has no direct bearing on education that I get riled up.

Volusia county just spent millions of dollars on a new video system. It lets teachers show us educational videos over the internet, at the same quality as youtube. Except, they don't have enough server capacity, so the videos are never available. Also, you could get the same stuff on youtube.

Wouldn't that money have been better spent on teachers, sports, arts, etc?

i've seen at least three posts in this thread mention "the alternative" to public schooling:

Xceler8x said: You both should pay as you benefit from the education other people's children get via tax dollars. It's a net benefit to everyone who lives in this society. Consider the alternative.

Tim Baxter said: The funny thing for me is that I have very little love for public schools. I think they're designed to--and excel at--making us good little automatons, happy to stay in the status quo, and NOT questioning it. In other words, pretty much the opposite of real learning and education. And yet, I absolutely believe in the necessity of our public schools. I may not like their methods or their results, but I absolutely prefer it to the alternative.

Mental said: I agree that the return on my investment is a bit disapionting, but I don't mind paying becuase I have seen the alternative both here and abroad.

the choice is not between public education and no education. SVreX and others school their children at home (that's one alternative), others of us choose to pay for private education (that's two alternatives), and in some places there are people who don't send their kids to any school at all (that's three alternatives).

then Mental sums up his position with:

I am kinda with Tim on this one. The mere fact we have to spell this out does kind of underscore the need for a proper education system

but what's the definition of a proper education system?

and since i disagree with what's being spelled out, does that mean that i didn't get a proper education?

and to Tim Baxter, WTF? you absolutely prefer "making us good little automatons, happy to stay in the status quo, and NOT questioning it. In other words, pretty much the opposite of real learning and education" over the not-clearly-defined "alternative". sorry, dude, but you've just plain lost me there. please elaborate.

Ah, ignore me. If I ever had a worthwhile point to make, it's long gone now.

I live in the upstate of SC and one of the biggest qualms I have with the public school system is the way they squander money. This is especially evident in the funding of school buildings. The area as a whole has experienced fairly rapid growth over the last 20+ years. This has created several problems with facilities that would have been completely avoidable with a little foresight.

First, the school boards seem to constantly have a "we need a new school" mentality. Instead of making relatively accurate growth projections and then adding a slight buffer, they build a school to accommodate overcrowding at present. After 3-5 years of construction, they move into an already undersized building with zero potential for expansion.

Secondly, virtually every school I've seen built has a near flat roof. Sure these might be cheaper in the short run, but they require nearly annual maintenance on the tar and gravel roof and have a life expectancy of maybe 20 years. If the school is lucky, they'll exhaust the life expectancy before having mold problems from the poor quality roof. Typically, this isn't the case though.

I've only heard of one school district (can't remember which) that actually constructed a sloped roof campus with roughly twice the capacity they were projected to need by time of completion. Unused areas were sealed off pending the time when they'd be needed.

I cannot understand why we do not build schools on property with ample space for all current academic and athletic needs as well as reasonable room for expansion. I also do not understand why we build schools with <20 year life expectancy. Sometimes I think the school board members are related to contractors hoping to build schools.

2 years ago the Pickens county school board wanted around $300 million IIRC to build entirely new high schools for the county (1 AA, 1 AAA and 1 AAAA again IIRC). There was so much controversy based on the cost of the proposal, so the issue was put on the November ballot. It was defeated pretty badly, but the school board found some loophole that allowed them to put it through IF they signed contracts prior to the end of the year. I can't imagine those contracts were well thought out or executed, but they signed it none-the-less.

Yeah, that new Pickens high school is 1/4 mile from my house too. Let me know if you need anything, JoshC, since we're pretty much neighbors...

Yeah, I see that flat roof thing all the time too. Some of them are even parapet design, talk about begging for leaks and mold!

The Cane Bay school down the road from my place was built in anticipation of a 13,000 house (no that's not a fatfinger) series of subdivisions being built right across the street. There were complaints that it was undersized too. As it turns out, the housing bubble popped and the school is actually underutilized at the moment.

Then back to Charleston County for a moment: there are new state of the art schools that have been built in Mount Pleasant but the outlying communities like McClellanville or Ravenel get nothin'. It all comes down to someone getting their name on a building somewhere. Pisses me off.

I also see the school's role in my kid's education as limited to the the three R's: readin', 'ritin' and 'rithmetic. (Yeah, I know. Science, English etc too, I'm making a joke.) My end of it is to teach her right from wrong, to take pride in her accomplishments and how to think for herself.

The public school system is a monopoly. It is a rare monopoly that is efficient, there is just on incentive.

That's why I prefer a voucher system and if the public school system can't compete then they close their doors. The big loser in that scenario is the sports program. Without that big cash cow of a monopoly who would pay for those big stadiums?

I have one question. If the schools are so bad, why do you live there? I bought my house 8 years ago when my oldest son was 3. The house cost about 20% more than a comparable house one town over. I also pay taxes that are about 15% higher. The school system is considered among the best in the area (I'm in CT). The upside to the high costs is that as the city schools get worse, my property value rises, so It makes sense to me..

We moved when I was two, because Holly Hill had bad schools, and Ormond's were great.

I hear ya Carguy123. I think more say in public education would be a good thing as well, within limits. With a voucher system you could choose which school to send you kids to and therefore tailor what they learn to fit your parenting style or beliefs. For instance, don't want anything but abstinence education? Use your vouchers at the "preggers and keggers" school down the street. It's your choice. I may not agree with it but it's not place to tell you what ideas you should expose your kids to.

At least we should have some sort of choice instead of the "one size fits all" style we have now. This would also alleviate Margie's problem now. She could pull her kids and put them in a school district that works for her and her kids college bound lives.

Education is a must. If we could instill that value in every man, woman and child, we'd be much better off in soicety. However, I think there is alot of fat in the public school system that could be trimmed and vouchers could help with alot of that. We could have schools more dedicated to sports, music, art, etc along with the basic R's and utilize it more efficiently. Schools that utilize the cheap benefit of the internet too could win over schools that try and do everything in-house. Basically, a child's education is paramount, but how its gone about being done has alot of options.

This sentence right here didn't come out how it sounded in your head, did it...?

"This is exactly the kind of story "The Daily Show" could cover appropriately and in all its sad, nuanced stupidity."

JoshC wrote: First, the school boards seem to constantly have a "we need a new school" mentality. Instead of making relatively accurate growth projections and then adding a slight buffer, they build a school to accommodate overcrowding at present. After 3-5 years of construction, they move into an already undersized building with zero potential for expansion.

Here in Dallas we have one guy on the School Board who has heavy connections with big construction companies. When the choice is between hiring more teachers and building another school, guess what they do?

We have lots of new buildings thanks to a big bond issue they passed a few years ago, and yes, I voted for it, but they are actually laying off teachers now. There is a brand new elementary school right down the block from me. There are other new schools all over town. But the district is running a huge deficit right now and they are laying off teachers. Oh, and the school board just cancelled the last election so voting the shiny happy people out is not an option. We won't even talk about how our last School Superintendent actually ended up doing jail time.

I know the kids have to sit somewhere, but do we really have to nice new buildings while teachers are in the unemployment line and the Construction Companies are smiling all the way to the bank?

Sometimes money spent on education has nothing to do with education.

Just to let you know, my mother is a teacher who still substitutes at the age of 78, and my father was at one time a member of the School Board back in California when I was growing up.

I think we can all essentially agree (to varying degrees) that education is a must.

We will begin to disagree when we try to define what a good education is, but even that's OK.

There is an ENORMOUS chasm when we start to equate the amount of money spent to the quality of the education.

I realize that there are a lot of people (probably about half of the people posting in this thread) who believe there is a correlation.

I personally believe that there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

As an example (and I'm not advocating home schooling, because I understand that it is definitely not for everyone), home schooled students represent less than 2% of the students of the country. They have the LOWEST dollar per student ratios of anyone (my kids are less than $600 per year, while the national average is $9000), yet they have been totally dominating the national scene in events like the National Spelling Bee, the National Geography Bee, in service in governmental intern positions, etc. Right now, most colleges in the country are making enormous efforts to court home schooled students because they recognize the educational quality and the impact they will have on the caliper of the overall student body.

Therefore, I believe there is minimal correlation between money spent per student and the quality of the education.

However, the earlier link to the Palm Beach Post article was different. This article put FL last based on money spent per $1000 of per capita income. If money per student is minimally relevant, then money per $1000 of per capita income is truly nonsense.

It is a bogus statistic based on fluff which has no meaning whatsoever. It's not the cost per student, or even the cost per capita. It is the cost per $1000 of per capita income.

So, if you live in a state with a small number of students enrolled and large amounts of income for the general population (maybe FL??), you would end with a ratio that looked like very little money was being spent, when the real cost per student could be even higher than the average.

Go get 'em, Margie!

I think by the time Margie finishes with the local politicos, she'll have enough fill to supply the FL DOT for the repaving of the ENTIRE FL highway system!

AngryCorvair wrote: i've seen at least three posts in this thread mention "the alternative" to public schooling:

Mental said: I agree that the return on my investment is a bit disapionting, but I don't mind paying becuase I have seen the alternative both here and abroad.

Oh, good piont. In this particular instance, I was refering to the alternative being an unfunded, or underfunded school sytem. In some western states the tribal systems are pretty bad. The bus rides take hours (thats plural) over bad roads so they can't do school work while they ride. In some of smaller southern towns and the midwest a lack of any extra-curicular activity outside of sports limits college oppurtunities, so a lot of kids drop out and take the mill job they are going to have to get when they graduate anyway. Overseas, where I was in Africa, if they kids are lucky enough to go to school, they cannot enter the final grade until they complete their open-ended compulsary military service. I have seen the trucks roll up as the school lets out and they "recruit" the kids there at gunpiont.

The other part of it when I was in Germany was a brilliant school system that prepared children for adulthood. If you want to go to college, the system prepares you while you are in High School. If you want to work a trade, they do that as well. I saw 17 year old kids on a work training program assembling engines at the Porsche factory. By the time they enter the workforce, they are skilled craftsmen

AngryCorvair wrote: then Mental sums up his position with:

I am kinda with Tim on this one. The mere fact we have to spell this out does kind of underscore the need for a proper education system

but what's the definition of a proper education system? and since i disagree with what's being spelled out, does that mean that i didn't get a proper education?

Another excellent piont. I did fail to clarify my position. There is no obvious detailed answer. Bu I would think most of us could agree a decent education system should preapre youth for adulthood, regardless of their choice of career path, or as a minimum, offer at least the oppurtnity for success. Not everyone is going to be a corprate CEO (on account of most them have souls) and not everyone wants to be. If a young person wants to learn construction, good on em. If they want to go to college they should be prepared for that as well.

Your disagreement of what is being spelled out simply means I failed to clarify my piont, and you are right. But I would venture almost all parents feel the piont of an education is to provide some training and oppurtunity. Those with means and the sense the public system is not providing it find other ways to give it to them. Private school or home schooling. But there are many who are without the means to do so.

Few expect a public school system to provide these things on the same level as a good private school, or as tailored as a well structured home schooled kid, but they should provide something, which if I understand correctly, Margie's system isn't doing at all. No extra-curicular activities and no AP courses. My old GA high school actually provided qualified training for basic entry level medical jobs, bottany, and entry level mechanical skill. Children who graduated from those programs were ready to start working. If Margies system is cutting the extra-curricular and well into a hiring freeze, I would almost garuntee those programs are not availible either.

So, you have joe average high school student in Voluisa county. He/She has no way of separting themselves from a college apllicant to UofF frm a better local system who was a cheerleader/football player in AP classes. Not becuase they weren't smart enough, becuase the program wasn't there. They also haven't learned a skill, so they aren;t as competitive for an entry level position to allow for more school, or start a career or both. Hello Mc Donald's. Home schooling and private school weren't options becuase both praents worked, or it was a single parent or what ever.

So for all ther input and taxes paid by the residents of that country, they have basically created a high school graduate with the same oppurtunities at some kid who graduated from summer school in the bottom 3rd of the class (That would be me).

At that piont, why is the kid even trying? and what is the piont of paying property taxes.

As for the solution, I don't have a specific one. It sure isn't more standards and testing and dear god is it not the No Child Left Behind Act. But I am, sure it involved both education mamgers and buracrats with the intestional fortitude to make better decisions that positivly affect the future, not just their job and a group of taxpayers both with children and without that realize uneducated and untrained children are a burden or our society and getting a proper school systems that preaprs them to compete is an ivestment for all of us to share, not just parents.

Buuuuuut if we were capable of that, we wouldn't be having these problems would we.

Mental wrote: Your disagreement of what is being spelled out simply means I failed to clarify my piont, and you are right. But I would venture almost all parents feel the piont of an education is to provide some training and oppurtunity. Those with means and the sense the public system is not providing it find other ways to give it to them. Private school or home schooling. But there are many who are without the means to do so.

Mental, that was an excellent response, and I understand your position exactly. But I still disagree with giving more money to the public school system because I see no evidence that the new money will not be spent in exactly the same way as the old money, which does not produce what i want to see produced.

I'm not lobbying to cut public school funding. I'm just saying that, up until this point in my life, I have voted against increasing it.

When I see a ballot item stating "increase millage by x for the specific purpose of increasing availability of AP courses" then maybe i'll swing the other way. But I most certainly will not vote to increase the number of free meals, distribution of condoms, or countless other things that i believe fall well outside the responsibility of them the school system and me the funder of said system.

I will vote AGAINST new basketball uniforms. I will vote FOR the purchase of fabric so the Home Ec class can make new basketball uniforms.

kinda like when Ron Burgundy insists that San Diego means Whale Vagina, I suggest we agree to disagree.

San Diego doesn't mean Whale Vagina???? I knew I should have paid more attention in school.

Good response Angry. I suspect you and Mental don't disagree much at all. I think letting the home ec class make the uniforms is brilliant, except home ec is usually one of the first things cut.

I do think they waste an awful lot of money. This is going to sound weird coming from me, but I think they blow an outrageous amount of money on computers & tech. At least the schools here do. You don't need a brand new computer and a full Microsoft Office license to teach a kid to use a word processor.

Tim Baxter wrote: I think letting the home ec class make the uniforms is brilliant, except home ec is usually one of the first things cut. You don't need a brand new computer and a full Microsoft Office license to teach a kid to use a word processor.

to the first point: Home Ec gets cut because of declining enrollment. Enrollment declines because of the US's epidemic of "Affluenza". Nobody sees Home Ec as a path to an affluent lifestyle.

to the second point: just look at me. i post here all day every day from an eight-year-old Gateway laptop!

oh, also to the first point:
Home Ec FTW!

But how is Bill Gates supposed to double his net worth without selling a full licensed Windows, PowerPoint and Office with every school PC? Oh the humanity!

There is a lot of fat in school budgets that can be cut. Somehow over the years school has morphed from what I consider 'hard' education (math, science, language, history etc) into something sorta similar to what Angry is talking about: social experimentation at the cost of the basics.

I will now move to the head of the patio foundation line: to me school sports should be a self supporting entity which receives no tax money, much like colleges 'allegedly' have self supporting athletic programs. (I say 'allegedly' because we all understand how the lines get blurred.) Use that money for academics because THAT is the real purpose of a school: kids prepared for reality, not a winning football (or soccer or whatever) team.

Jensenman wrote: Use that money for academics because THAT is the real purpose of a school: kids prepared for reality, not a winning football (or soccer or whatever) team.

right. for every michael jordan there are about a million burger flippers who can dunk.

I promised myself I wouldn't post on this anymore...

I really don't give a damn about school sports. And all of you hard-liners really need to explain to me how removing all of the accelerated classes from the curriculum fits in with your demands that education focus on the "hard" tasks. My son will study physics and organic chemistry in the 9th grade, but next year my daughter quite possibly won't have that opportunity. Instead, they'll both have to sit bored in classes that cover stuff they had in previous years. Way to maximize our educational dollars. And way to guarantee a mediocre result.

I will say one thing, though: It's an EXCELLENT way to prepare kids for reality. Especially in America.

Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote: I promised myself I wouldn't post on this anymore... I really don't give a damn about school sports. And all of you hard-liners really need to explain to me how removing all of the accelerated classes from the curriculum fits in with your demands that education focus on the "hard" tasks. My son will study physics and organic chemistry in the 9th grade, but next year my daughter quite possibly won't have that opportunity. Instead, they'll both have to sit bored in classes that cover stuff they had in previous years. Way to maximize our educational dollars. And way to guarantee a mediocre result. I will say one thing, though: It's an EXCELLENT way to prepare kids for reality. Especially in America. Margie

It doesn't matter whether it is cheerleader training or advanced placement physics. Philosophically, some people just believe you shouldn't force others to educate your kids. Either home school them or pay out of your own pocket to send them to a private school that, of course, would be totally unregulated by any government entity.

This is simple in theory, but in reality going in this direction will put us at a distinct disadvantage when competing against the rest of the world. You are limiting those who can learn things like advanced physics to people who could afford private schools and highly educated parents who can teach thier own children. There is also a difference between teaching rote memorization skills that win spelling bees and providing an education that includes an understanding of advanced math and science concepts. The former can be taught at home schooling level. The latter, not so much, unless you have parents who are engineers or scientists who can take off enough time from work to teach their kids all day.

Locally there are a bunch of charter programs that are student focused. If you have a 9 year old child operation at an eighth grade level then the child learns above his level. My son has problems with his speach originated from a hearing deficiency. He hears but not well. His speech level is pre-K but his math and spelling are more along the 1-2 grade levels. Arrtistically he is closer to a 3rd grader. His speech hinders his ability to outwardly communicate but his ability to write makes up for it. Tanner goes to public school and his speech therapist and kindergarten teacher have both taken great effort to help my son get past this issue and get a normal education.

Public education can work if the educators are given the abilities to teach.

Cutting public education should be done ONLY if the millionaires in congress decide to cut their own pay.