Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I believe he was agreeing with my point as concerns quality of education.Quote:
Originally Posted by CC
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I believe he was agreeing with my point as concerns quality of education.Quote:
Originally Posted by CC
That's not the same as a good teacher earning a merit increase....poor comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
The notion that money has nothing to do with a quality education is preposterous. Is money the only thing that could change the system? No. Is gutting the education system the way to go? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
So is he for merit increases or against them? That's related to money... can we spend more to pay merit increases?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
what property tax cuts? During 15 years in my current house, my prop taxes have just about doubled.
LMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
You are assuming that the teachers in the "good" school districts make more than the teachers in the "bad" school districts.
In fact in any given region they all make pretty much the same. Example teachers in SAISD make pretty much what teachers in NEISD make.
The good teachers go to the good school districts so they don't have to put up with the crap students, not because they are paid more.
my sister teaches in a southside district. I asked her why down in that crappy area. She said they paid more.
If you can't quantify the effects of money on education, then you cannot with any intellectual honesty say that position is preposterous. What you could say is, "Hey, I don't really know what effects money has on quality education outside of it being a basic component."Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
I dunno. Ask him.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
In the context of your point concerning good teachers flocking to schools that pay well.....why do you suppose that is? Probably because there is no merit based pay system that works.
That's a very local example. I can counter that with ease with local examples that are exactly the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
The end result? You don't really know until you start digging in the data statewide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Quote:
"Hey, I don't really know what effects money has on quality education outside of it being a basic component.
My head asplode.
While I will stop short of saying "bullshit", I find that highly unlikely without some very loose definitions of "related to education".Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Link?
SHHHHH. Don't give them any ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Let's backup the truck here.
I think we can all agree that we aren't spending money as well as we could be by the simple extension that we're broke and our graduation rate ain't all that hot. Agreed?
That behind us, and assuming that a graduation rate is at least a metric of some concern, setting aside that it's not tied to quality of education in any meaningful way, how can we spend money more intelligently or efficiently?
I'll throw an idea out there....consolidate school districts.
The impact would be almost immediate. When I was teaching, I spent a fair amount of time in some small, West Texas schools. I taught in a small school system East of Lubbock on hwy 114. You could travel 26 miles on that highway and travel through 4 seperate school districts...each of which had enrollment < 1200 for the entire district! Yet, you had 4 completely separate administrative systems...bus maintenance facilities....quadruply duplicated physical plants....and this is the norm for rural Texas.
OK, lets do the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Texas spent $11,084 per student in 2009
An average teacher made $47,000 a year and had at LEAST 22 students, so lets say that teacher cost $2136 per student.
That leaves us $8948.
OK, we need schools. Top of the line, class "A" office space (like lawyers, accountants, fortune 500 companies etc. use) right on loop 410 with all the bennies...parking garage, security, utilities paid, landscaping, etc. costs $24 a square foot a year. People build these complexes and operate and lease them AT A PROFIT for this amount. A 40' X 30' classroom would cost $28,800 (divided by 22 students) or $1309. per student.
That leaves us $7639.
What else? Want to give them all lunch for free? Is $5 a day enough? You can certainly get catered meals from Bill Millers for weddings for less...so 180 days X $5. Thats $900.
That leaves us $6739.
Want to buy each one a laptop? Thats another $600...
That leaves us $6139.
Miscellaneous school supplies, copies, report cards, etc? $300?
That leaves us $5839, or still OVER HALF LEFT of what we spend per kid.
You REALLY don't see anything wrong with this picture?
Happens on a weekly basis, it seems. Are you a Himalayan deity with a thousand heads? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
:lol No. Just some poor sap that apparently regrows heads ala' Men in Black.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
You don't have to be a technocrat/statistician to understand the relationship between funding and class size, and being able to attract and maintain an experienced, qualified teaching staff. This is discussed in the article, is it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
Frequently the importance of class size & teacher experience is dismissed (one can always find a study to fit one's needs) but I would think that if presented a choice, most parents would prefer that their kids receive more individualized attention from experienced teachers.
That about sums up what this manufactured crisis is all about, and who's responsible.Quote:
Many school administrators blame the current budget crisis on an overhaul of the school finance system five years ago, which Mr. Perry and Republican leaders pushed through in response to popular anger over high property taxes. The Legislature put a cap on property taxes for schools and promised to make up the difference with a new business tax. But that tax has never produced enough revenue to make the districts’ budgets whole.
It's funny when wing-nuts use their own random numbers to prove their points....
....Quote:
"Under current funding levels, Texas is already near the bottom in education funding per pupil (Texas ranks 44th nationally), " she said.
politifactQuote:
the state ranked 44th in 2008-09, according to the report, averaging $8,610. That year, the top-spending state, New Jersey, averaged $16,253, and the lowest-spending state, Arizona, averaged $5,932. The national average: $10,313.
LinkQuote:
Texas spends $7,561 per pupil $1,577 below National Average of $9,138
Dallas Morning NewsQuote:
The comparison by the National Education Association, a teachers group — based on figures furnished by state education agencies — indicated that in the 2009-10 school year, Texas spent $9,227 per student, a figure that’s $1,359 below the national average.
That places Texas 37th in spending among the states and the District of Columbia. Ten years ago, Texas ranked 25th and was $281 below the national average.
Wing-nuts ain't interested in solutions, just on blaming unions..
(winces)Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
What you have left out of your analysis:
1) I assume that you want hallways, lunchrooms, and gynasiums, and bathrooms for the children. Factor that in, because it is directly related to the ability to move children to the bathrooms etc. To keep track of enrolled students, vaccinations, attendence etc, one needs at least a little office space for administration as well. Unless of course you want teachers doing all of this, you need this to keep the teachers teaching.
2) We can also assume that for any given school two janitors to take out the trash are needed. Unless you want the teachers to take time away from teaching to take out trash, clean up vomit, and scrub the toilets for the little dears.
3) Now, in order to get kids to the school so that you can teach them in the first place, you need buses and drivers. Unless you want the teachers doing this.
4) Those classrooms, if you want niceties like water and electricity also require utilities.
5) If you want the teachers to be filling out the W-4's, hiring and firing, as opposed to teaching you also need accounting clerks, and HR, and etc, etc, etc.
All of this might not be directly related to teaching, but unless you want your teachers doing everything but teaching, all of this seemingly non-related activity suddenly becomes a lot more important.
Do you think that teachers can teach effectively if they have to prepare food, mop hallways, conduct repairs, make hiring and firing decisions, take out the trash, track truancy, drive kids to and from school, and do payroll?
Not to mention buy classroom materials for their student out of their own pockets, as most teachers end up having to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Good? If you really had ANY fucking idea what you were talking about you would ashamed. My mother works in one of the worst schools in Ft. Worth. They don't have enough money to buy ink cartridges for the printers. The magnet kids (honor students) would not have the chance to compete in UIL academic competitions if it weren't for my mother spending HER OWN MONEY to rent a van on weekends. The worst part is that she'll likely get laid off because of this. She is one of the many that sacrifices so much for those kids. As always, the teachers are taken for granted here and will be among the first to suffer state budget cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Evidently, you're a giant tool that speaks without thinking so I doubt you possess the ability to admit when you're wrong. Don't reply to my post.