http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/0...0-billion/

Of course. The government's involved.

And the same chart could be used if the government takes over health care. Although I believe the red and green lines re-labeled "care provided" and "survival rates" would be on a more pronounced downward trend.

(09-10-2009 08:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  And the same chart could be used if the government takes over health care. Although I believe the red and green lines re-labeled "care provided" and "survival rates" would be on a more pronounced downward trend.

Actually that was Coyote's point. This same chart has Dems saying "spend more on education" but "spend less on healthcare."

Well, there is a slight difference, the spending on healthcare has shown positive results.

(09-10-2009 08:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 08:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  And the same chart could be used if the government takes over health care. Although I believe the red and green lines re-labeled "care provided" and "survival rates" would be on a more pronounced downward trend.

Actually that was Coyote's point. This same chart has Dems saying "spend more on education" but "spend less on healthcare."

Well, there is a slight difference, the spending on healthcare has shown positive results.

Thanks. I haven't had my coffee yet this morning. Little slow yet.

Torch,

The CATO link is blocked at my school. Is the spending line adjusted for inflation? I would think that inflation has gone up the same rate over the last 20 some years. We spent 4,400 per student in 1973. Today we spend 11,000 on average. That just seems like it's common sense. Everything costs more than it did in 1973 why would education be any different? What are constant 2008 dollars? I'm sure the article explains it but I can't get to it.

I know in Ohio the avg is 5,000 per student or it was a couple of years ago.

there's alot of things that go into that number and very little of it is in the classroom. Sad really.

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/.../Docume...umentID...

This link is broke for some reason don't need to link to it now. I'll see if I can fix it later. Think of all the unfunded mandates that have made thier way through to the local level. From school buildings to buses to Jarrod's law. Eeck!

(09-10-2009 09:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch,

The CATO link is blocked at my school. Is the spending line adjusted for inflation? I would think that inflation has gone up the same rate over the last 20 some years. We spent 4,400 per student in 1973. Today we spend 11,000 on average. That just seems like it's common sense. Everything costs more than it did in 1973 why would education be any different? What are constant 2008 dollars? I'm sure the article explains it but I can't get to it.

Constant 2008 dollars is the adjustment for inflation. So, the purchasing power of the dollar represented in 1973 is the same as in 2008.

Of course I'm not totally comfortable w/ that estimate, b/c I believe the purchasing power of a 2008 dollar is far greater than 1973, particularly concerning many education tools like computers.

I've read some speculation that much of the increase in costs can be attributed to increased numbers of administrators. In other words, schools have more administrators (typically of high pay) while the teacher:student ratio hasn't changed much. It's verfiably true at the university level, you may be able to confirm the truth in that at the 2ndary school level.

Schools also have had to comply with the ADA. There are costs there, I understand. But, this chart still raises a lot of questions about gov't funded schools.

What if you reduced taxes, reduced the public schools spending, and let people pursue vocational training of their choice?

Why on earth would a School block CATO? I have my theories, but good grief.

Torch you are so on..................

When I started teaching we had 50 teachers on our staff 3 administrators. Superintendent, High School and Elementary Principals. Teacher student ratio probably 22:1. We now have more kids in the school with less (45) teachers. 7 administrators. High School, Middle School, Elementary Principals, Curriculum Coordinator (the wife of the old supt) , Special Ed coordinator, Athletic and Activities Director, Superintendent. Now all these guys have their own support people too. Secretaries for all of them. It is a shame.

wonder if Private Schools have more or less Admins? they are closer to a market/efficient based setup.

One of the head football coaches I coached under came from a private school. He loved coaching there, loved teaching there, but DIDN'T love the pay there. If he said it one time he said it a million times. You didn't have to deal with the 10% of the idiots you have in a public setting. Those idiots taint probably 20% of their peers.

(09-10-2009 09:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  there's alot of things that go into that number and very little of it is in the classroom. Sad really.

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/.../Docume...umentID...

This link is broke for some reason don't need to link to it now. I'll see if I can fix it later. Think of all the unfunded mandates that have made thier way through to the local level. From school buildings to buses to Jarrod's law. Eeck!

Wait a minute. Are you saying spending money on buildings and busses is a BAD thing? If the government doesn't pay for it, who does? Building fal apart after years of use, buildings need to be built because of overcrowding, busses need to be used because not everyone has a parent to drive them to school, not everyone is within a short walking distance to a school. Am I missing something?

There are 21.3 kids per teacher in California which is probably typical of most states, but almost half of California's general fund is dedicated for education only - most of that is salaries.

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/...umber%3D16

(09-10-2009 10:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  One of the head football coaches I coached under came from a private school. He loved coaching there, loved teaching there, but DIDN'T love the pay there.

Because those families are paying twice for schooling.

Have people only pay once, and it gets better.

However, I understand the sentiment to have the public contribute to education, in a steady, predictable fashion. It helps with budges, it helps unify society, and it promotes equity: if we didn't then those gay Duke professors would just rape kids w/o even paying for their school.

So, I would offer that if you went to a more market based system, you'd find that schools would find ways to pare down these administrative costs. Each family would receive a "marker" for each child. The family could choose the school their child attended, and the marker would be good for the school to recive a prescribed amount of funding.

Parents could direct their children to schools that more closely met the child's needs, selecting teaching styles and methods, curricula (fine arts, music, science/math, machining/manufacturing, history, etc), pace, or other factors each family held as important.

With parents having an influence in the schools, children being catered to, and teachers given freedom to find a place to teach that matches their style, it's a win-win-win situation.

(09-10-2009 01:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 10:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  One of the head football coaches I coached under came from a private school. He loved coaching there, loved teaching there, but DIDN'T love the pay there.

Because those families are paying twice for schooling.

Have people only pay once, and it gets better.

However, I understand the sentiment to have the public contribute to education, in a steady, predictable fashion. It helps with budges, it helps unify society, and it promotes equity: if we didn't then those gay Duke professors would just rape kids w/o even paying for their school.

So, I would offer that if you went to a more market based system, you'd find that schools would find ways to pare down these administrative costs. Each family would receive a "marker" for each child. The family could choose the school their child attended, and the marker would be good for the school to recive a prescribed amount of funding.

Parents could direct their children to schools that more closely met the child's needs, selecting teaching styles and methods, curricula (fine arts, music, science/math, history, etc), pace, or other factors each family held as important.

With parents having an influence in the schools, children being catered to, and teachers given freedom to find a place to teach that matches their style, it's a win-win-win situation.

In other words, you want science out, the Bible and creationism in. Not surprising. I think the 700 Club is on.

Why do you love Tyrany so much Roberta?

Dynamite is your friend Roberta. Go introduce yourself to some.

(09-10-2009 01:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 01:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-10-2009 10:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  One of the head football coaches I coached under came from a private school. He loved coaching there, loved teaching there, but DIDN'T love the pay there.

Because those families are paying twice for schooling.

Have people only pay once, and it gets better.

However, I understand the sentiment to have the public contribute to education, in a steady, predictable fashion. It helps with budges, it helps unify society, and it promotes equity: if we didn't then those gay Duke professors would just rape kids w/o even paying for their school.

So, I would offer that if you went to a more market based system, you'd find that schools would find ways to pare down these administrative costs. Each family would receive a "marker" for each child. The family could choose the school their child attended, and the marker would be good for the school to recive a prescribed amount of funding.

Parents could direct their children to schools that more closely met the child's needs, selecting teaching styles and methods, curricula (fine arts, music, science/math, history, etc), pace, or other factors each family held as important.

With parents having an influence in the schools, children being catered to, and teachers given freedom to find a place to teach that matches their style, it's a win-win-win situation.

In other words, you want science out, the Bible and creationism in. Not surprising. I think the 700 Club is on.

He didn't say, imply, or infer any of what you claimed. You are a fool and prove it with every post.