<p>Good synopsis, xiggi, I’m with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand you might not understand that … because taking money away is NOT what I suggest. Redistributing money from a monopolistic provider to a diverse set of providers is not the same proposal.</p>
<p>"MiamiDAP, Our kids are not taught less science or math than those in countries you cited. "</p>
<p>-Again, you can hold your opinion. My opinion is supported by facts. In regard to History and such, it is also taught at higher level and broken down to hisotry, geography,…IMO, being a good citizen does not depend on number of Social study classes, it depends on good examples at home and school. Infortunately, History and such is not taught as science, it would be very beneficial if it was. It is taught as bunch of unrelated facts/dates. They have very deep meanning today, but it is never pointed out at school anyway.</p>
<p>I think ANY source of school funding that is subject to wide fluctuation (e.g., property tax collections that can rise or fall at high rates) is a bad idea. We can afford to fix more potholes when times are good, but I’d rather see education funding levels be mostly unaffected by boom and bust business cycles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science doesn’t need creative, out of the box, free atmospheres?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you propose one does that?</p>
<p>Oldfort, I’ve had kids in public and private. We put DD in private here in NJ because she was transitioning schools at the start of junior year and we felt she really needed a smaller environment and more individualized attention. It was the right decision – she has really done well and we consider it a worthwhile investment. Clearly, many of the public school districts in the area are excellent and if I’d had an incoming freshman we probably would have gone with one.</p>
<p>I absolutely think Ridge HS would still be ranked very high with or without tons of school funding. It’s the families that comprise the district, not the budget for the science labs that is driving that success.</p>
<p>Agree with most everything Xiggi is posting on this thread. Would only add that I think the underlying problem or “moose on the table” lies in our education departments in our colleges and what they produce in the way of curriculum, teachers and education foundation thought leaders. It’s truly atrocious and at the root of the dysfunction, imo.</p>
<p>Oh, and Wis – are you unaware that so-called “rich” parents who send their kids to private schools are actually contributing significantly more in terms of money to public schools than parents who send their kids to public school? We pay for public just like everyone but we make no demands upon it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wasn’t the basic principle that revenues would increase every year … regardless of property values? When property values did not go up sufficiently, all that was needed is getting a rate increase. When property values go up, all that was needed is find way to spend the manna quickly. </p>
<p>The hiccups started to appear when taxpayers realized that it was not that dumb to pay attention to the rubber stamping and ancillary elections, especially new bond elections. The result has become a game of resolve between taxpayers who repeatedly vote down most requests for tax increases and the relentless forces who do not take a no for an answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Spot … on.</p>
<p>xiggi, I can’t tell what you advocate in this regard: continuing fluctuations, or a stable mechanism?</p>
<p>It is usually very hard to tell what xiggi advocates.</p>
<p>IP, I am pretty certain that you know that the buzzword in today’s world of education is … disruptive innovation. The existing funding mechanism is at a breaking point. The future “business as usual” expansion of tax revenues is no longer feasible with the double whammy of eroding property values and eroding incomes. </p>
<p>We cannot increase net income with more tax reductions; we cannot expect more stimuli plans to shore up systems that spend more they can and should collect. In so many words, we have now officially used up our last bandaids. Too bad, we used up most of them on the patient’s wooden leg. The latest round of federal spending in education have or will be swallowed entirely without meaningful changes. We gave more money to the same people and hope the result would be different from giving his entire paycheck to a drunken sailor! </p>
<p>Here’s a text to chew on … when time permits:</p>
<p><a href=“http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffpiu013.pdf[/url]”>http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffpiu013.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sounds like a consulting buzzword, essentially a recommendation to grow taller. </p>
<p>I am now well educated on the problems. Thank you xiggi. What are the solutions?</p>
<p>Incidentally that article was about college and grad school education. Not K-12.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cannot please everyone!</p>
<p>Xiggi, have you ever heard of the management style that requires anyone coming up with a problem to also come prepared with a set of proposed solutions with pros and cons?</p>
<p>Of course! But that has no relevance here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just playing the devils advocate here but don’t public schools get “stuck” with all the students that the private schools wont take? Special education students, emotionally disturbed students, students just released from juvenile hall? We had one student at my HS that was so “bad” he had an escort the whole time he was at school. He couldn’t even go to the bathroom alone. Public schools also have to pay for buses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about donating items the school or poor children might need. Graphing calculators are too expensive for poor kids. You could donate a few of those.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>love that line!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That makes sense. But I don’t think that’s what Wis recommended, as her point was about NOT taking your kid out of public schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Golly! And so could you, Limabeans!</p>
<p>And just to let you know, i was on the school board for four years in a large, racially and economically diverse district. We made money off the special needs kids. We courted them, built special facilities for them and competed for them with other districts. Were you unaware that special needs carry with them a LOT of funding?? A special needs kid is money from heaven for school districts.</p>
<p>Now, ESL kids . . . that’s another story.</p>
<p>I can certainly tell you that affluent families who tended to pay high property taxes and then send their kids private were very cherished. All the funds earmarked for those kids went straight into the discretionary budget. We loved 'em. The private schools were our friends.</p>
<p>But it’s a very satisfying narrative to tell yourself rich mean people abandon the public systems and leave the poor kids to wallow in the ghetto schools. Whatever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true though. </p>
<p>But what I don’t understand is how it is the rich parents’ responsibility to make school better for all kids, and how that responsibility supersedes the other responsibility to educate their own child in the best way possible. Also, how can a rich parent make a public school better by putting his/her kid in the school?</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I am all for higher taxes and funding schools. I am all for charitable donation of top of the taxes. But I am not for mandating that my kid HAS to go to the local public school.</p>