• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Conservative War on Education

My understanding is they get the same $$$ / student as the public school, but don't have to provide bussing. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

But, they definitely SHOULD provide bussing because that's the equalizer that truly allows people of every income level access.

No, your understanding is not correct.

I went through the analysis last year (on the NC debacle thread, post 2490): http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/16914-Ongoing-NC-GOP-debacle-thread/page125

Reposted for ease of review:

No, you are simply wrong, that isn't the way the federal funding works. The money in question is assigned on a per-child basis, not on a zone basis. This is the link to the 2014 NC school budget:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...kMoxQ1SlQGF6tQ

Look on page 12 of the PDF, which is where the federal funding is broken down. The school gets $27.46 from the feds for every student. Then, the school (in this case the traditional public school) gets an additional $1,822.38 for each Low Income Family student (which is what is being discussed here, the lunches and bussing); another $1,507.01 for each student with an IEP; and $1,452.26 for a limited English student. These funds are tracked by student, not by zone. How do you think the IEP funding works - they just guess based on a percentage? No, of course not, when a kid with an IEP moves from district to district or from public to charter, the federal money assigned to that child goes with them. It is the same way for the Low Income Family addition within the traditional public school system.

So, again, the only way the charter school gets the Low Income Family money under the proposed legislation is if the student from the Low Income Family goes to the school. So your hypothetical doesn't work, unless you think that there are Low Income Families who are swinging the system by qualifying for the subsidy while hiding their cars and lunches from the process. In your scenario a middle class kid from Pilot going to a charter school, regardless of how he gets there or what he eats for lunch, would not bring the $1,822.38 of Low Income Family funding with him, because he is not from a Low Income Family. The only way your hypothetical works is if there are Low Income Families who qualify for the $1,822.38/student bonus but who don't need the bus or the lunch, which doesn't make sense because they likely wouldn't qualify for the funding category in the first place. The charter school would not get that $1,822.38 unless the Low Income Family student actually went to the school.

Here is how charter school annual funding works: The charter school opens on day 1 of the academic year. They then have to wait 20 school days for the enrollment to sort itself out, as some kids who got accepted don't show but never bothered to decline, others try it for a few days then switch, whatever. After that 20 day threshold, the charter school submits its actual roster of students to the various public school systems from which it draws. That home system then transfers the money allotted to those particular students to the charter school. Currently, for a student with an IEP, the federal $1,507.01 addition for that IEP follows that student. That is why certain charter schools push for more IEP students and designations, because if they only have a few then they don't get enough funding to fully support them, but once they reach a critical mass then they can put the infrastructure in place and then use any excess arising from their efficiency for the school in general.

And that is what hey are trying to do here with the $1,822.38 Low Income Family addition. It is already tracked by student, they are trying to get it to follow the student. And there is no logical reason why it shouldn't. The public school no longer has that Low Income Family student, why should it get to keep the $1,822.38 allocated by the feds to that student, whereas the charter school has to make it up from other sources? Yes, Pilot would no longer get that federal subsidy if the Low Income Family student goes to a charter school, but why should they? They obviously failed enough to alienate that Low Income Family to push them somewhere else, so they have nobody to blame but themselves. That shouldn't mean that said Low Income Family student should lose his funding because he has a better opportunity. #allLowIncomeFamilylivesmatter
 
No, your understanding is not correct.

I went through the analysis last year (on the NC debacle thread, post 2490): http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/16914-Ongoing-NC-GOP-debacle-thread/page125

Reposted for ease of review:

This site says the following:

http://www.nccharters.org/resources/faqs

Public charter schools are funded through state and federal funds. Public charter schools receive funding based on the county where the students are domiciled. The state allocates to each public charter school the same average per-pupil allotment that is given to the local district in which the public charter school is located. Additional funds are granted for children identified with special needs and for children with limited English proficiency.

The way public charter schools are funded has been problematic since public charter schools first began operating. In addition to being shortchanged by not receiving capital funding, the funding system has pitted traditional public school systems against public charter schools. When local students choose public charter schools over the district school, the local funding is re-allocated to the public charter school serving the child.

Charter schools should provide transportation if they're "public."
 
Did you not read what I just posted? The funding for bussing poor kids doesn't come from the state, it comes from the feds.
 
Did you not read what I just posted? The funding for bussing poor kids doesn't come from the state, it comes from the feds.

Must be missing something. Maybe it's in the non-functional Google link.

the charter school gets the Low Income Family money under the proposed legislation is if the student from the Low Income Family goes to the school.

when a kid with an IEP moves from district to district or from public to charter, the federal money assigned to that child goes with them. It is the same way for the Low Income Family addition within the traditional public school system.

I read the part about the critical mass. But, they're not going to get a ton of low income families if they're not finding a way to get the kids to the school.
 
The telling thing about this whole exchange is that our education system is so underfunded that the various schools involved in it have to fight for their scraps like dogs in an alley.

Maybe if we, as a society, were actually committed to education, we'd commit enough money to it so that experiments in charter schooling and vouchers and what not could be conducted, and simultaneously the existing system could be fully funded and improved.

Instead we kind of limp along with the bare minimum, hamstring that with unfunded mandates and excess administration, and when enough people get fed up, strip out cash to set up new, unproven and unaccountable schools. Great system.
 
The telling thing about this whole exchange is that our education system is so underfunded that the various schools involved in it have to fight for their scraps like dogs in an alley.

Maybe if we, as a society, were actually committed to education, we'd commit enough money to it so that experiments in charter schooling and vouchers and what not could be conducted, and simultaneously the existing system could be fully funded and improved.

Instead we kind of limp along with the bare minimum, hamstring that with unfunded mandates and excess administration, and when enough people get fed up, strip out cash to set up new, unproven and unaccountable schools. Great system.

I agree 100%.

Trudy Wade says our teachers are paid $50k per year though.
 
Anybody got some box tops they can send me so my kid can have math workbooks?

#freemarketeducation
 
Anybody got some box tops they can send me so my kid can have math workbooks?

#freemarketeducation

We link our Harris Teeter VIC Card to our school like any good parent!
 
The telling thing about this whole exchange is that our education system is so underfunded that the various schools involved in it have to fight for their scraps like dogs in an alley.

Maybe if we, as a society, were actually committed to education, we'd commit enough money to it so that experiments in charter schooling and vouchers and what not could be conducted, and simultaneously the existing system could be fully funded and improved.

Instead we kind of limp along with the bare minimum, hamstring that with unfunded mandates and excess administration, and when enough people get fed up, strip out cash to set up new, unproven and unaccountable schools. Great system.

We obviously don't spend it wisely, but the problem with US schools is not a lack of funding. We spend more than anyone else on a per student basis

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/
 
We obviously don't spend it wisely, but the problem with US schools is not a lack of funding. We spend more than anyone else on a per student basis

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

It's amazing that this remains a talking point. I posted the link that DC schools spends over $29,000.00 per pupil and has a lack of proficiency rate of 83%.

The problem isn't funding. You won't convince the True Believers otherwise. I don't know how they'll defend a 17% pass rate at $30,000.00 per year per student, but rest assured, they will.
 
We obviously don't spend it wisely, but the problem with US schools is not a lack of funding. We spend more than anyone else on a per student basis

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

This excerpt is telling:

Public spending accounts for just 70 cents of every education dollar in the United States. Parents picked up another 25 cents and private sources paid for the remainder in 2010.

A decade earlier, the public's share of education spending was 72 cents on every dollar.

The average OECD nation spent 84 cents of every education dollar, down from 88 cents a decade earlier.

For post-high school programs, the United States is far outspent in public dollars. U.S. taxpayers picked up 36 cents of every dollar spent on college and vocational training programs. Families and private sources picked up the balance.

In other OECD nations, it was roughly reversed: The public picked up 68 cents of every dollar in advanced training and private sources picked up the other 32 cents.

Education spending doesn't correlate well to results, whether between states or between countries. It's a lot like health care spending in that way.

I didn't see a link in the article to the source. I have a lot of questions about how those numbers were calculated. Like, for example, is the massive amount that the US spends on middle school, high school, and college sports included in these numbers? That expenditure doesn't exist in Europe, but it's a major line item in every school system in America. I would also like to crunch the numbers and see how much the differential in spending is changed if you look at just public spending and take out all the private spending by parents. finally, the OECD is a very large data set and includes some nations we should not be comparing ourselves to, like Slovakia and Mexico (as mentioned in the article). How do the numbers look if just stacked up against the G8? If you can find a link to the actual OECD report I'd like to look at it.
 
This excerpt is telling:



Education spending doesn't correlate well to results, whether between states or between countries. It's a lot like health care spending in that way.

I didn't see a link in the article to the source. I have a lot of questions about how those numbers were calculated. Like, for example, is the massive amount that the US spends on middle school, high school, and college sports included in these numbers? That expenditure doesn't exist in Europe, but it's a major line item in every school system in America. I would also like to crunch the numbers and see how much the differential in spending is changed if you look at just public spending and take out all the private spending by parents. finally, the OECD is a very large data set and includes some nations we should not be comparing ourselves to, like Slovakia and Mexico (as mentioned in the article). How do the numbers look if just stacked up against the G8? If you can find a link to the actual OECD report I'd like to look at it.

What does that matter? Money is money. Those parents spending on private schools are also probably footing a disproportionate percentage of the public spending as well, is that relevant?

Unless your argument is that private schools make better use of their dollars than public schools, which would undermine your larger point.
 
jhmd sure does love to beat up on that poor strawman of big bad teachers unions preventing accountability, but he never explains how charter schools provide any more accountability. Charters schools are held far less accountable in every single criteria, going as far as some of them being pyramid schemes offering bounties for recruiting poor students.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk
 
Remind me why conservatives complain about public schools when conservatives control most state public school systems. Federal policy tacks closer to NCLB than any liberal ideas. Time to own it.
 
jhmd sure does love to beat up on that poor strawman of big bad teachers unions preventing accountability, but he never explains how charter schools provide any more accountability. Charters schools are held far less accountable in every single criteria, going as far as some of them being pyramid schemes offering bounties for recruiting poor students.

Sent from my SM-N930T using Tapatalk

That's what they want. They want to turn poor kids into $$$ without the responsibility of educating them. That way they can just blame the poors for bouncing around their schools and not graduating.

We must dispel the myth that conservatives don't know what they're doing. They know exactly what they're doing.
 
What does that matter? Money is money. Those parents spending on private schools are also probably footing a disproportionate percentage of the public spending as well, is that relevant?

Unless your argument is that private schools make better use of their dollars than public schools, which would undermine your larger point.

i don't think that public schools are particularly efficient at using money. They spend money on stupid things that have nothing to do with education (i.e., middle school football teams), they suffer from administrative bloat due to decades of unfunded mandates and a litigious society, and most of them have to keep up with legacy facilities that are inefficient and costly to maintain, just to name a few factors.

What I take issue with is the notion that the solution to these problems is to just say "fuck it" and set up a whole new parallel education system. Time after time, that new system can only be accessed by the comparatively wealthy kids/kids with the most competent parents, and the poorest kids with the crappiest parents get left in the legacy system. That's not an efficient use of resources, system-wide, either. Not to mention the parallel notion of just slashing education funding across the board, without any concomitant reduction in unfunded mandates or administrative structures, and just telling the schools to educate more kids with less money.

That's not reform, that's just giving up on a bunch of our kids.

By the way, the Washington, DC data notwithstanding, there is a large gap in per-pupil expenditures between poor districts and rich districts in this country. (PS, NC and most of the south actually do pretty well on this, which is great). When you dig into the data, you will find that middle-upper class US public school students in these rich districts actually beat almost every other country in those global standardized tests. It's the poor districts that drag our global scores down.

http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-schools-grew-44-percent-over-a-decade/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-23-states-richer-school-districts-get-more-local-funding-than-poorer-districts/
 
i don't think that public schools are particularly efficient at using money. They spend money on stupid things that have nothing to do with education (i.e., middle school football teams), they suffer from administrative bloat due to decades of unfunded mandates and a litigious society, and most of them have to keep up with legacy facilities that are inefficient and costly to maintain, just to name a few factors.

What I take issue with is the notion that the solution to these problems is to just say "fuck it" and set up a whole new parallel education system. Time after time, that new system can only be accessed by the comparatively wealthy kids/kids with the most competent parents, and the poorest kids with the crappiest parents get left in the legacy system. That's not an efficient use of resources, system-wide, either. Not to mention the parallel notion of just slashing education funding across the board, without any concomitant reduction in unfunded mandates or administrative structures, and just telling the schools to educate more kids with less money.

That's not reform, that's just giving up on a bunch of our kids.

By the way, the Washington, DC data notwithstanding, there is a large gap in per-pupil expenditures between poor districts and rich districts in this country. (PS, NC and most of the south actually do pretty well on this, which is great). When you dig into the data, you will find that middle-upper class US public school students in these rich districts actually beat almost every other country in those global standardized tests. It's the poor districts that drag our global scores down.

http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-schools-grew-44-percent-over-a-decade/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-23-states-richer-school-districts-get-more-local-funding-than-poorer-districts/

So is the solution to get rid of poor people?
 
Back
Top