Reform the school system - How would you do it?

[Zhangfei]

No ... currently we (taxpayers) pay about 15k or 17k depending on public school per child.

No you don't. The average per student is $10,500 per student and not all of the funding comes from taxes - schools generate their own income too. You spend about $10k per student.

Some private schools charge less.

Very, very rarely, and homeschooling is cheaper still. Private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools and the amount of horror stories I've heard of rampant corruption makes them less appealing.

School bus - at least for my kid, costs under 900 dollars per school year.

And if you were in a large district in Iowa and wanted to bus your kids 1.5hrs across it to go to a different school? Even in SC there are some ridiculous commutes. Gas isn't cheap, buses aren't cheap and drivers aren't cheap. By stretching the system out, you're causing a steep rise in cost to the school.

So basically what I'm saying is that if I'd have a voucher for 15k, I'd be able to pay for my kid's private school + bus transportation + have have few K left over.

Your figures are false.
http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/rankings/ppexpend

You MAY live in the DC area and I'd sympathise but it's clear that the more you spend, the better the education, and the range is wide.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say it doesn't work. It's cheaper, plus you can hire exactly the teachers you want, based on performance.

Because where the system has been put in place IT HAS NOT WORKED. Simply put, this is another significant waste of money where it should be more fairly spread and invested into education, not some crappy failed system. Go with what has been proven to work (investment into better facilities, teachers and a focus on reading and comprehension at lower levels by having smaller classes) rather than whatever wank fad has sprung up this year.

[Elegiac]

The education system(s) around the world don't teach creativity or intelligence. They teach people that they're only worth what trivial bullshit they can hold inside their head, and if they can't hold quite enough information that the teacher wants, they're a drooling retard.

It disgusts me that children go into the education system, overcoming immense challenges, that we take for granted now, such as Walking, Talking & all the other near sub-conscious functions we perform, because as a small child we're determined to improve, you strive to better ourselves. We look to our elders or our peers and see what we can become, and reach for it.

The education system beats that out of children. It teaches them to resent success, that you're only worth what your boss pays you and that it is acceptable to spend a mere 16 - 18 years in education in your early years, only for you to then spend the rest of your life confined to work, so you can then retire on a pathetic pension and pretend that what you did was a duty.

It is bullshit. I've never believed it, I refuse to believe the education system is worth what it costs us in Tax, and my children will grow up knowing that intelligence is not the ability to recall information, but to create new opportunities and create success for yourself. If I wanted someone to recite me history or facts, I would get a computer, not another employee.

I think this merits a 'bitch please'.

The 'history and facts', besides being important, are only the top level and if you cite that as the reason for education, you are failing to understand the point. History, facts, etc. teach two things; critical thinking, and perspective.

And don't give me that 'real world knowledge versus academic knowledge' tripe. Academic knowledge is what makes the world go round.

[Laize]

Only because you're taking my words with extreme literalism. Why the hell would I be advocating adjusting the amount a bracket pays without a bracket adjustment?

Alright here's a hypothetical. The top 1% of households earned $1.32 trillion last year.

There are something around 115 million households in the United States.

That means 1.15 million households earned an average of $1,147,826.09. If we tax income over $1 million by 90%, that generates $152 billion in revenue. Not what I would call game-changing money.

On the other hand, if you simply had all households over $250,000 pay 35% of their income (no exceptions) as opposed to paying only about 22% of their total AGI, you'd wind up with approximately $600 billion.

That solution is far more fair and maintains a pareto distribution of 80/20. They get 80% of the income, they pay 80% of the taxes.

[Elegiac]

Alright here's a hypothetical. The top 1% of households earned $1.32 trillion last year.

There are something around 115 million households in the United States.

That means 1.15 million households earned an average of $1,147,826.09. If we tax income over $1 million by 90%, that generates $152 billion in revenue. Not what I would call game-changing money.

On the other hand, if you simply had all households over $250,000 pay 35% of their income (no exceptions) as opposed to paying only about 12%-14% of their total AGI, you'd wind up with approximately $600 billion.

Revenue is revenue. And again, you're discounting the fact that most wealthy people get most of their income via capital gains. And the fact that the tax would be progressive from bottom up, so you'd have a vastly larger pool of income than you are describing.

Also the fact that sovereign states can't go bankrupt.

[Belize]

- Make competitive gaming a high school sport (even though it's not a sport). Tons of kids are into it, so why not have them compete in the process? Parents would probably be happier with it, especially since students may be less likely to play them as much back home.

Dear god yes. I would be THE most popular "sport" in school. And if anyone uses the lame excuse that "huurrr it consumes too much time that could be spent elsewhere" well so do normal sports, but just because society finds those "acceptable time wasters" they're off the hook.

[Laize]

They should already have their high school diplomas or the GED.

I meant if high school graduates get free college, so should adults who meet criteria.

And American anti-intellectualism rears its ugly head yet again.

Anti-intellectualism MY ASS. The price we should be willing to pay teachers to teach our kids is not "infinity billion dollars". There's a price that's fair to both teachers AND taxpayers and we're way beyond it in the teachers' favor.

Teaching is not a do nothing job. It is quite difficult, point of fact, especially with such large class sizes. So while they may have 'benefits', the compensation which as was pointed out only applies to very experienced teachers is still not enough.

Then again, Americans don't care about academics.

Horse shit. We love academics. The problem is you want MORE teachers getting paid MORE money. If we double the teachers to get a 18:1 ratio and increase their pay by 50% we've TRIPLED the amount we're spending on education. Do you have NO idea where this money comes from? The tax hikes involved? States like NJ and California already have the highest costs of living in the country and you want that number to go up. Fuck that and anyone who thinks that.

Entirely false. It is in fact 90% being held by 10%, the highest wealth disparity in any Western country.

According to Wikipedia the top 10% of the country hold 73.1% of the wealth in this country. The top 20% combined hold 85.1%. You are factually wrong, sir.

And "Income" does not include capital gains. Please stop quoting Fox Finance.

Income should include capital gains. I don't read fox finance, I read MarketWatch and Forbes.

---------- Post added 2012-10-09 at 10:27 PM ----------

Revenue is revenue. And again, you're discounting the fact that most wealthy people get most of their income via capital gains. And the fact that the tax would be progressive from bottom up, so you'd have a vastly larger pool of income than you are describing.

Also the fact that sovereign states can't go bankrupt.

I'm simply stating that if we took 1/3 of the income from everyone over $250,000 we'd have a LOT more money while being fair (Because it is NOT ethical to take from the wealthy simply because they have money. You take what you NEED and nothing more. 1/3 is a fine number, still leaving them with 2/3 of their money).

[Elegiac]

I meant if high school graduates get free college, so should adults who meet criteria.

You're splitting hairs.

Anti-intellectualism MY ASS. The price we should be willing to pay teachers to teach our kids is not "infinity billion dollars". There's a price that's fair to both teachers AND taxpayers and we're way beyond it in the teachers' favor.

Fair to the taxpayers? The fact the teachers are being paid period is fair to the taxpayers given that educated students are a social benefit.

Horse shit. We love academics. The problem is you want MORE teachers getting paid MORE money. If we double the teachers to get a 18:1 ratio and increase their pay by 50% we've TRIPLED the amount we're spending on education. Do you have NO idea where this money comes from? The tax hikes involved? States like NJ and California already have the highest costs of living in the country and you want that number to go up. Fuck that and anyone who thinks that.

I do. Primarily for student benefit. Once we lower the teacher to student ratio to about 1:18 then we can talk about adjusting pay scales.

California's budget woes are due to other problems.

[chadwix]

No you don't. The average per student is $10,500 per student and not all of the funding comes from taxes - schools generate their own income too. You spend about $10k per student.

This isnt right. The friday night football game and bake sale wont even cover a portion of the admins (not on campus) 200k salary for making decisions.

[Laize]

Fair to the taxpayers? The fact the teachers are being paid period is fair to the taxpayers given that educated students are a social benefit.

Are you not listening to a word I'm saying? LOOK AT HOW MUCH THEY ALREADY GET PAID! You can't just say we should triple our spending on teachers and be grateful for the opportunity.

I do. Primarily for student benefit. Once we lower the teacher to student ratio to about 1:18 then we can talk about adjusting pay scales.

California's budget woes are due to other problems.

The teachers have proven over and over again they're not in it for the students' benefit. Their willingness to strike because they have to pay some ridiculously small percentage of their own benefits packages (Between 1 and 5% in NJ) says so loud and clear.

[LilSaihah]

I would entirely hand education over to the private sector. Mwahaha!

[Elegiac]

Are you not listening to a word I'm saying? LOOK AT HOW MUCH THEY ALREADY GET PAID! You can't just say we should triple our spending on teachers and be grateful for the opportunity.

The pay standards you linked apply to experienced teachers, not entry level.

I can and did.

The teachers have proven over and over again they're not in it for the students' benefit. Their willingness to strike because they have to pay some ridiculously small percentage of their own benefits packages (Between 1 and 5% in NJ) says so loud and clear.

People don't become teachers for the pay, I can assure you of that.

[Zhangfei]

In what world are teachers "well paid" in America? $50k a year for someone with a Masters degree on average?

Holy pants, batman. Lawyers get paid more and their job doesn't directly contribute to human capital or economic growth.

[Elegiac]

In what world are teachers "well paid" in America? $50k a year for someone with a Masters degree on average?

Holy pants, batman. Lawyers get paid more and their job doesn't directly contribute to human capital or economic growth.

People don't seem to understand teachers are just as important as soldiers, probably even more so.

[BLCalliente]

They work 180 days a year. Everyone else works about 230-240. In exchange they get median salary, fully paid pensions and health benefits (They pay nothing) as well as guaranteed raises. So to recap, they get compensated more for working less than just about any job in the private sector. These benefits aren't performance based. They just get them.

Then they have the nerve to claim they NEED the benefits for the good of the students... while they're on strike.

I have no sympathy for teachers.

Teachers do pay for a portion of their health benefits. Raises in Michigan (and lots of other places) are frozen, and have been for several years. They work a lot more than 180 days a year.

Yep, you're still a blowhard.

---------- Post added 2012-10-09 at 04:43 PM ----------

Are you not listening to a word I'm saying? LOOK AT HOW MUCH THEY ALREADY GET PAID! You can't just say we should triple our spending on teachers and be grateful for the opportunity.



The teachers have proven over and over again they're not in it for the students' benefit. Their willingness to strike because they have to pay some ridiculously small percentage of their own benefits packages (Between 1 and 5% in NJ) says so loud and clear.

Obviously you aren't an "expert" on this subject (although you sure are acting like one). Stick to trickle down economics.

[Laize]

The pay standards you linked apply to experienced teachers, not entry level.

I can and did.



People don't become teachers for the pay, I can assure you of that.

I'm not inclined to take anything you say seriously. You pull facts out of your ass. I've yet to see you cite a single source and when you're flat wrong (such as wealth distribution in America) you pretend it never happened.

[Elegiac]

I'm not inclined to take anything you say seriously. You pull facts out of your ass. I've yet to see you cite a single source and when you're flat wrong (such as wealth distribution in America) you pretend it never happened.

Point of fact, I'm researching before I answer that part of your post.

[Laize]

Point of fact, I'm researching before I answer that part of your post.

You don't seem to research anything or, if you do, you certainly don't share with the rest of the class.

You have nothing but conjecture to back up your idea that tripling the amount we spend on teachers is a good idea.

[Elegiac]

You don't seem to research anything or, if you do, you certainly don't share with the rest of the class.

You have nothing but conjecture to back up your idea that tripling the amount we spend on teachers is a good idea.

I do plenty of research. However, after eight years of debating on the internet I've learned that no matter how much evidence you post the willfully ignorant will not change their viewpoints.

And I said 50%, not 200%.

[Laize]

I do plenty of research. However, after eight years of debating on the internet I've learned that no matter how much evidence you post the willfully ignorant will not change their viewpoints.

And I said 50%, not 200%.

Nope, 50% increase in salary plus doubling the number of teachers.

1.5 * 2 = 3x as much spent on education.

[Skizo]

At my high school, we started out with about 10 voucher program kids in our class out of 350 students
We graduated with 2 voucher kids out of 320 students