<p>Since when do public schools not have teachers for the 3 R’s?</p>
<p>I probably should have said another math teacher. Or maybe a French or German teacher.</p>
<p>Even if the PTA isn’t paying the salary of an employee, the funds they bring in frees up money in the school budget TO pay that extra employee, end result is the same really. Our booster clubs can pay for additional coaches for sports but that is it. It’s more of a “stipend” vs “salary” though.</p>
<p>There was a big todo a few years back when some PTAs in NYC were raising enough money to pay for extra teaching assistants for their kids’ schools while others were unable to. We are talking about Wall Street types for whom $10,000 dollar donations is nothing. It’s not easy to get money from corporations, believe me, I was involved in the PTA for years. We had a grant from RIF that was ongoing, we got a big chunk one time ($5000) from Home Depot to start a Learning Garden, and dribs and drabs here and there, but it was nothing compared to what some of those NYC school PTAs had. In the end the NYC PTAs were told money couldn’t go to salaries.</p>
<p>I think it’s grossly unfair that some schools get tons of extras because their schools have wealthy parents and others don’t. At the same time, I certainly was more interested in raising money for my community and seeing that our kids got the goodies we worked so hard for.</p>
<p>It’s one reason why I am glad our town only has one high school - at least at that level the benefits are spread evenly. We also have a city wide educational foundation that raises money for programs in all the schools.</p>
<p>If our schools had all of the ‘extras’ that the urban schools get, the gap would only widen. The urban schools provide free tutoring to any student that wants help, they have smaller class sizes, more aids in the rooms, free access to prep classes for ACT/SAT, etc., etc., etc. Yet, if our PTA raises money to put SmartBoards in the math and science rooms part of that money is expected to go to the “poor” schools to give them extras?? Again, go examine the school budgets for these “poor” schools, what is their per pupil spending? What extra programs do they have. What extra FUNDING do they get for those programs? I think that most people would be amazed to learn that these “poor” schools aren’t so poor. The problem is, at least in our area, so much of that money is going to special education programs to get kids to grade level because they started kindergarten with NOTHING and too many of them have parents at home that don’t care if they know their spelling words, or do their homework each night.</p>
<p>I did a quick check of the Seattle public schools per pupil spending. The operations budget per pupil spending is $12,957 for 10-11 school year, overall is $19,051 (includes capital improvement budget). Someone mentioned Belleview so I looked that up, per pupil spending is $4932 in the operations budget.</p>
<p>The McGilvra school mentioned in the article has a per pupil spending of $10609, yet their fundraising dollars are expected to help the school with the $12,957 per pupil spending???</p>
<p>Around here the wealthier school districts also spend far more per pupil than the poorer ones AND raise more private funds. So the inequality is multiplied.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t compute with me. I don’t understand the angst over some schools having fabulous resources because parents paid for them while others have the basics. Is this any different than saying it is grossly unfair that wealthy families live in mansions while others live in apartments? What does “fairness” have to do with it? Are you proposing that no schools get a new theater, computers, av equipment if not all of them do? Why would you want that?</p>
<p>Well, if you insist that all public schools be the same, the rich people will flee to private schools–and then they will fight against public school funding. I think the best you can do is to restrict local donations to “extras” to avoid gross disparities in provision of the basics.</p>
<p>People are getting hung up about money, when it’s NOT more money that puts one school at a considerable advantage compared to another.</p>
<p>Here is a list of 2010 data on what OECD countries spend per pupil for secondary education. The costs are in equivalent USD converted using purchasing power parity normalized for GDP. Per pupil, the U.S. spends a third more than Canada or the E.U. average, and spends nearly double what Israel or New Zealand spends. I’d be hard pressed to claim that the academic performance of U.S. kids is commensurate with the greater spending. </p>
<p>Luxembourg 17,928 (L’bourg has a population of only 1/2 million people)
Switzerland 13,982
Norway 11,997
United States 11,301
Austria 10,641
Netherlands 10,248
Denmark 9,675
France 9,532
Ireland 9,375
Sweden 9,143
Belgium 8,992
United Kingdom 8,892
Australia 8,840
Japan 8,760
Spain 8,730
Iceland 8,349
EU19 average 8,346
OECD average 8,267
OECD total 8,153
Canada 8,045
Italy 8,004
Korea 7,860
Germany 7,841
Finland 7,829
Slovenia 7,267
Portugal 6,833
New Zealand 5,933
Israel 5,741
Czech Republic 5,527
Russian Federation 4,878
Estonia 4,869
Hungary 4,225
Poland 3,590
Slovak Republic 3,219
Mexico 2,236
Chile 2,222
Brazil 1,750
China 1,153
Indonesia 482</p>
<p>Here’s a link to the OECD report:
[Education</a> at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators](<a href=“http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html]Education”>http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html)</p>
<p>mathmom, if equality is the lofty goal, then maybe we can look to Cuba or North Korea as a model. But I suspect that, even in those 2 proletarian paradises, some schools are more equal than others</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I don’t understand this line of thinking. It is better that no schools offer outstanding “basics,” (which by this I think you mean teaching in basic subjects) if not all of them do? Why should this be a goal?</p>
<p>As a practical matter, in some districts (like ours) I do not think that parent donations can pay for teacher salaries due to union contracts. In order to keep that teacher employed year-to-year, there would need to be some way to guarantee the same level of giving.</p>
<p>$400K of donations a year! That’s what made my eyes pop out. :eek:</p>
<p>At our local high school, each activity has its own booster club. For example, the band boosters fundraise to provide music coaches, uniforms, music, etc. Now that band fees aren’t allowed (only “voluntary donations” equal to past band fees, but nobody is under any obligation to pay them), I would expect more fundraising to occur.</p>
<p>GMTplus7–in most of those countries, if not all, special education is not factored into success rates or per pupil spending–that is a HUGE part of every district’s budget in the US. Somewhere I would like to see a true apples to apples comparison of education around the world, maybe only comparing the top half of students or only those not receiving any special ed assistance??</p>
<p>In our district there is huge disparity between elemantary schools in terms of free and reduced lunch, ESL, etc. As kids pool to middle school then high school is starts to even our somewhat. At the high school level, there are richer booster clubs and not so rich booster clubs (a neighboring booster club pays the football coach 55k per season on top of the 4k that regular coaches receive). However, each HS now has a critical mass of parental time and money resources to seed further PTSA efforts.</p>
<p>My main point . . . my kids ultimately attend a high school with kids from 4-5 elementary schools. The high school offers more sections of advanced classes, IP/IB programs etc. based on demand. One advantaged elementary school is not fueling the demand to provide all those opportunities for my kid (who attended the advantaged elementary). Enough kids from the whole pool need to be successful learners and demanding those classes for the district to offer them. If the parents from one elementary just lived in their bubble, they would get out to middle school and high school and find that their kids were limited by fewer course offerings. The bottom line for many parents - if the high school dies, your house values die along with it. There was good incentive in our area to bolster the local high school both from the top down and the bottom up. With these district wide efforts our HS has grown from 750 to almost 1500 in 6 years. It is now fairly self-sustaining, but it did take some propping up for several years to build momentum.</p>
<p>Major school expenses are for infrastructure - building and maintaining existing schools. These are usually raised by local bonds and harder to do in poor areas. #70, I would bet those figures aren’t including infrastructure costs, as the per pupil spending quoted in US figures also doesn’t include them.</p>
<p>^^^^#76 - and that was meant to build completely new schools, not just maintenance of existing schools.</p>
<p>
Yes, it is different. I’m not sure if I can logically say why though. I think the system we’ve got is not even separate but equal, it’s separate but unequal. I also totally understand that if the public schools aren’t nice enough the wealthier people will flee to private schools and that’s a disaster for public schools too. It’s a dance, and I’m not sure what the answer is. I’d like to see all children have the same opportunities at least in school, even if they can’t have the same opportunities at home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a laudable goal, but I think it is unattainable in a society based on capitalism and liberty. The best we can hope for is the best education for all that the people/government can afford, along with the opportunity for some to achieve/receive the best education in the world.</p>
<p>This issue came up with a public school near the University of Pennsylvania in University City. The University was trying to strengthen the immediate neighborhood, and wanted more of its university and hospital employees to live nearby. Many people loved the neighborhood, but refused to live there because of the public schools. </p>
<p>The University agreed to help fund the local elementary school and to provide support services through the University’s College of Education. There were concerns at the time about unfairness, and how this elementary school would siphon off the best students from other elementary schools and decrease their quality. After much controversy, a series of compromises were reached to resolve the issues, and the school is doing very well.</p>