Higher taxes does not equal better education

fisheromen · 05-08-2003, 09:29 PM

We insist on continuing down the same old tired path, even though it doesn't live up to it's promises, because it's too frightening to try something new.

"The higher spending/higher achievement theory was put to its ultimate test in 1985 when a federal court ordered a complete overhaul of Kansas City�s public schools. "For decades," Paul Ciotti writes in a Cato Institute chronicle of the Kansas City experiment, "critics of the public schools have been saying, �You can�t solve educational problems by throwing money at them.� The education establishment and its supporters have replied, �No one�s ever tried.� In Kansas City they did try."10

Missouri�s fourteen-year $2 billion experiment bought 15 new schools, 56 magnet schools, state-of-the-art vocational training centers, a world-class athletics department that offered fencing instruction by a former Soviet Olympic team coach, a 40% increase in teachers� salaries; and a student/teacher ratio at 12 or 13 to 1.11 When local taxpayers balked at tax increases to pay for the overhaul, the court ordered property tax rates doubled and imposed a 1.5% surcharge on wages earned in the city.12 Missouri was "forced to spend 45% of its education funds on the 9% of the state�s students" in the Kansas City district.13

"Kansas City did all the things that educators had always said needed to be done to increase student achievement�it reduced class size, decreased teacher workload, increased teacher pay, and dramatically expanded spending per pupil�but none of it worked," says Ciotti.14

By 1999 when the federal court ended the project, white enrollment had declined, average test scores were no higher, math scores of middle school students were lower, the black/white achievement gap remained unchanged, and the drop-out rate had risen to 60%.15 "More than 1.6 billion extra dollars [had] been spent on the fewer than 40,000 students, or about $40,000 extra per pupil," to no avail.16 "In May 2000, the Missouri Board of Education officially removed accreditation status from the district for failing to meet any of 11 performance standards."17

Quality versus Productivity

Quality in education, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some define quality in terms of academic rigor. Others characterize quality in terms of specialty programs such as fine arts, vocational education, or athletics. Still others describe a quality education as a holistic approach that trains the heart (i.e., moral or character education) as well as the mind (i.e., knowledge). School personnel often define quality in terms of salaries, contract arrangements, and facility conditions.

By most of these definitions, Kansas City would be considered a high quality public school district. But productivity�not quality of buildings, salaries, programs and other �inputs��is the critical problem facing Kansas City and the nation.

Harvard University economist Caroline Minter Hoxby, daughter of a Carter administration undersecretary of education, explains why her research indicates the U.S. education sector is in a productivity crisis:

The main symptom of the productivity crisis is the fact that productivity has fallen almost 50 percent in the past 30 years. We measure productivity by dividing a measure of student achievement by per-pupil spending in inflation-adjusted dollars. Regardless of which achievement measure we use, we find a decline in productivity of 40 to 50 percent. This is because achievement has been flat or slightly declining, while costs have been escalating rapidly.

Schools don�t face enough competition. Just imagine competing grocery stores. If one of them decided to increase its prices but offer exactly the same products, people would go to the other grocery stores � Unfortunately, parents do not have sufficient opportunity to change schools so that they can say, �My school is more expensive than before and it doesn�t seem to be doing better than other competing schools. Therefore, I�m going to send my child to another school� � competition is too weak to be an effective brake on costs.

Citing Milwaukee public schools as an example, Hoxby notes that "schools can improve if they are under serious competition."

The [Milwaukee public] schools that faced the most competition from the vouchers improved student achievement radically�by about 0.6 of a standard deviation each year. That is an enormous, almost unheard-of, improvement. Keep in mind the schools in question had had a long history of low achievement. Yet they were able to get their act together quickly.

"School choice," concludes Hoxby, "is probably the policy most likely to restore school productivity."18

From http://www.cblpolicyinstitute.org/privatepublic.htm

fisheromen · 05-08-2003, 09:46 PM

One more post:

Oregon ranks 19th nationwide in money spent per pupil ($8488 according to the NEA 2001 stats). This is ahead of any other continental state West of the Mississippi. California was closest at #25 - $7930 per student, and Washington was #26 - $7855 per student.

We don't lag behind others in education spending, in fact we are ahead of the game. And when times get tough, you tighten your belt. Right now Oregon has the highest unemployment rate of any state in the nation.

[ 05-09-2003, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: fisheromen ]

Get Bit · 05-08-2003, 09:57 PM

Your 1991 stats are a far cry from today. The economy is in the tank.I believe the most current #'s I heard were some where just shy of $5,000 per student.

fisheromen · 05-09-2003, 05:08 AM

OOPS, I meant 2001, sorry. I think I heard PPS spending was up 9% last year from 2001. I'll try and amend the original post.

Straydog · 05-09-2003, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisheromen:
We insist on continuing down the same old tired path, even though it doesn't live up to it's promises, because it's too frightening to try something new.

Enough said.

My daughter has one chance, 9 more years at getting the best education she can get. I am not willing to sacrifice her education while the anti public school zealots try other experiments.

Next year she could could have 33 kids in her class. Next year she may have no co-curricular activities in her school. Next year she will likely be using torn up, out dated books. Next year she will likely have over an hour bus ride to school as we cut back transportation. Next year her education will likely suffer because of lack of alternative ed facilities so the trouble making kids will remain in class in to disrupt. Next year she could have less than the best teachers possible as we cut the more experienced, more expensive teachers. Next year she could miss out on lots of technological advances since we don't have the money to build and imporve our computer labs.

Fund our schools adequately today, then pursue your social agenda. Fortunately, we could probably afford to send our daughter to one of the better schools in the caste system of education you push for. It is those less fortunate that I worry most about.

I guess we can continue to build more prisons and juvenile detention homes for those without the bucks to afford the better schools.

Interesting you use a grocery store analogy. Come down to So. Oregon where less than 5% of the schools have adequate heating and cooling systems. Many have bad plumbing, deteriorating structures and still look like something out of the '50's and '60's, when they were built. How are these schools going to compete with wealthy people and their schools? How do these schools compete with the malls and grocery stores as places a person would even want to be? Easy. They dont.

People will spend 5 to 10 bucks a day on designer coffee drinks, cigarettes or booze, but squeal like stuck pigs when asked to spend an extra 100 bucks a year to update and maintain our schools. It is sick.

[ 05-09-2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Cool Texan · 05-09-2003, 06:15 AM

We hear ya Stray. But putting more money into the system is not the answer.

TheRogue · 05-09-2003, 06:18 AM

StrayDog, once again....

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

TR

Kruechief · 05-09-2003, 07:07 AM

Quote:

but squeal like stuck pigs when asked to spend

I don't believe any one here is squealing. I think fisheromen presented some very interesting and informational data.

If anyone is squealing now, it is the bastions of money squandering entrenched bureaucratic buffoons who are supported by well-meaning, misinformed Chicken Littles.

My vote in Albany is HELL NO! Not until the district cuts the central office fat.

Krue

Straydog · 05-09-2003, 07:24 AM

Krue,

It sounds as if you must be pretty well informed on the budget for the administrative office in your district. I would be interested in comparing it to our district. I would be interested in knowing what percent of your budget goes to School Administration, Curriculum Development, Instrutional Media Center, Board of Education Services, Office of the Superintendant, Fiscal Services, Admin. Office Plant Operation and Human Resources.

Can you help me?

I didn't single out Fisheromen as a squealer. Notice the general term "people". Read the letters to the editor, listen to rant radio and attend a town hall meeting or two. In our world the squealing is loud and consistant. Perhaps that is not the case in Albany.

[ 05-09-2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Hoosier Daddy · 05-09-2003, 07:28 AM

If parents took more interest and control of their childrens education, districts could spend less time and money putting out fires and kissing peoples behinds and do the work.....part of the equation IMO

Straydog · 05-09-2003, 07:30 AM

HD,

I sure couldn't argue with that.

How do we make it happen???

Hoosier Daddy · 05-09-2003, 08:31 AM

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to make it happen. If love for your kids can't get you to do it, nothing will......

Goes back to my longstanding gripe with people who are more concerned with buying the latest and greatest everything and keeping up with the Jones' than spending time and effort where it belongs......

I think a lot of what is wrong today (crime, education, etc.) can be traced back to this kind of thing. Not necessarily "family values" as we have come to understand it (although that's part of it) but just getting back to making this stuff matter more than buying and consuming...

This whole thing is a mess. My experience (limited to my wife's and mother's teaching days) is that most teachers are doing what they can. The administrators have parents who won't discipline their kids breathing down their necks, and everyone is subject to trying to make kids pass tests rather than actually learn something. Its a huge vicious cycle. The reaction to increasing budgets and perceived (probably real) decreasing results has been to enact this testing scenario to try and hold the schools accountable for what they spend. I don't know what other option there is in this regard. I also don't think it's the most effective way to do this. People need to understand that schools are a tool for educating kids, not a place you ship them off to so you can go work your 80 hours a week, nor are they a "repair shop" where you can send them and get them educated. The real responsibility for childrens education lies with the PARENTS. That's something that has really changed over the last 30 years or so. Used to be, parents made sure their kids did their homework, went to class, listened to their teachers, etc. Now they are too busy spending and earning so they can buy their kids and themselves the latest cell phones, designer crap, jumbo Shmuck-a-cino's etc. It makes me ill. I saw a commercial the other day with an 8 year old kid sending his Mom a photo over his CELL PHONE of a frog IN HIS CLASSROOM. Why the HELL does an 8 year old need a cell phone, WHY would it be OK for him to use said CELL phone in CLASS, and why are we supposed to think the whole thing is CUTE!!??

Sorry, I'm ranting. Bottom line...You can't just ship your kids off to school to get them out of your hair for the day and expect them to get an education. NO teacher can educate a child that doesn't want to learn (this starts at home) and that doesn't have the support/encouragement/boot-in-the-rear from home. Period.

Yes, more spending is not the answer. But we also need to quit blaming everyone else for children not getting a good education. This goes for everything actually. All we do anymore is blame someone else for EVERYTHING. Ridiculous.

enough, I'm tired now....geez.

[ 05-09-2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

Gus Orviston · 05-09-2003, 08:44 AM

how about this for a tax increase to fund our schools? Those with kids can't write them off on their taxes, therefore those that use the schools pay for them. [img]graemlins/hearton.gif[/img]

Yes, we all benefit from an educated population, however, it is your kids pay for it.

As for the school system funding $/kid, let's get out the number more clearly. 5K/kid is not even close to reality from all the debates I have heard. Oregon is higher than most, so where is our dollar going that is getting wasted relative to other states? And no this isn't going to get done on this BBS, it needs to be done by our leadership in the state and demonstrating to the people how the dollar is spent.

gus

Hoosier Daddy · 05-09-2003, 08:49 AM

Yeah, that would do a good job of encouraging people to spend even less time with their kids and take less involvement with their education, since they would have to work even more hours to pay their taxes....... :depressed:

Gus Orviston · 05-09-2003, 09:58 AM

You sound like there is a set $ amount you need to pay to the government, and you have to work until you reach it? :depressed: ...sorry I don't see the logic in that arguement.

Work more if you want to or don't have kids to start with. Do people that plan on having children, start calculating how much it saves them on their taxes? I feel sorry for the kids of those parents that do.

Making the arguement that the amount I am taxed is indirectly proportional to the amount of time I spend with my kids is just not taking the responsbility of being a parent.

gus

Degner · 05-09-2003, 10:30 AM

Gus,
[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Degner · 05-09-2003, 12:32 PM

The fact we spend as much as we do proves our society supports education.
We are getting a raw deal for our money.
Reform is needed at the top.
I will never support throwing away more and more money into a failed and poorly run system with the hope that somehow it will make it all better.

TheRogue · 05-09-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

I will never support throwing away more and more money into a failed and poorly run system with the hope that somehow it will make it all better.

And sacrifice how many year's worth of "borderline" students, to get your point across??

TR

fish_on · 05-09-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Get Bit:
Your 1991 stats are a far cry from today. The economy is in the tank.I believe the most current #'s I heard were some where just shy of $5,000 per student.

Portlands all funds school budget is around 565M they have 53,000 students that is 11,200/student. South Lane District 28.5M 2837 students 10,010/student.

The low numbers they are throwing at you are the feneral fund numbers you have to look at their total funding or all funds budget and you will see Oregon spending is near the top.

fisheromen · 05-09-2003, 07:02 PM

"we all benefit from an educated society"

Yes we do. Why is this the government's responsibility though? Would people really not learn to read without public education? Excuse me but that is a line of s.... that gets too much press. The whole thing is dictated by a government that "know's best" and I'm sick of it. What would all of us stupid people do without the government there to take care of us and educate us? I disagree vehemently that education would be a problem, even for the poor, without government control.

Straydog,

I have so little confidence in the PS system that I bet your daughter would be light years ahead if you didn't have the government to rely on and instead came up with an educational program for her yourself, even if it was in the evenings. Wow, maybe she could do some kind of internship during the day and learn way more than her wasted time in class will ever teach her. And $8500 a year would go a long way towards tutors and creating educational opportunities for her.

Okay, there's my rant.

The Fishing Geek · 05-09-2003, 07:44 PM

For those people who only want those who use the schools to pay for them, I'm sure that the same logic will work with police and fire, right? Therefore, the next time you call a police officer for whatever reason I'm sure you'll have no problem paying the hefty bill, right? Does that mean that the folks who answer the 911 calls should prequalify the caller to make sure that they can pay the bill? Should only those with means to pay get those services, too?

Whether you have children or not, you benefit from an educated society. Not seeing this is about as myopic as a person can get.

Hoosier Daddy · 05-09-2003, 11:07 PM

Sorry Gus, not my point at all....

Just grousing I guess. You may have a point. My only point was that raising taxes on people with kids (which is what you are suggesting) could conceivably get people to take on more hours, etc. to make up the difference. And no, no one should have kids for tax deductions. I got no problem paying for my kids education. But it is a societal responsibility as well. I've spent plenty in taxes already for everyone elses kids, well before I had any of my own. Do I get a refund?
Do we just start charging people who "use" police and fire services on a per-call basis, thus reducing the tax load on the rest of us who haven't had any fires lately?

I agree with everyone on here that more spending is definitely not the answer.

FallRiverGuy · 05-09-2003, 11:59 PM

Pay me now or pay me later. I think SD hit it right on the head. What you don't pay for now in education you will pay later either directly or indirectly in future.

I am somewhat baffled at what seems like a large lack of support for education when it should be a major social priority. I guess I am lucky that when I went thru the public education system there was still enough sense of community that people were willing to support education.

Straydog · 05-10-2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisheromen:

Straydog,

I have so little confidence in the PS system that I bet your daughter would be light years ahead if you didn't have the government to rely on and instead came up with an educational program for her yourself, even if it was in the evenings. Wow, maybe she could do some kind of internship during the day and learn way more than her wasted time in class will ever teach her. And $8500 a year would go a long way towards tutors and creating educational opportunities for her.

Okay, there's my rant.

Glad you got the rant out of your system.

Do you have kids?
Do you have a job?

The reason I ask is because if you have both, then maybe you can explain to me how a person is able to support their family and replace the role of the school at the same time.

Further, I can not teach her many things nor as effectively because I do not have the knowledge and skills to do so. Yes, I can and do teach her a lot but a full curriculum that will prepare her for the continuous advances in knowledge as she goes forward in life, no, I don't have those skills.

Further, a short civics lesson for you. WE are the government and rather than sit back and RELY on it to educate my child I choose to partner with those elected to manage the government we constitute and help bring about change from within the system. I am relying on no one completely to educate my child but am working with those charged to do so to make things better.

As you have said, there are different types of people. Some choose to sit back and ridicule while doing nothing to bring about change. Some choose to ridicule and offer suggestions, time and energy to make it better. Some choose to keep their heads in the sand and do nothing while the world turns all around them.

I prefer to talk the talk and walk the walk.

Krue,

I am still hoping you will provide me some comparison numbers for our school districts. You made the charge that your district is top heavy at the administrative level and I am really wondering where precisely the waste is occuring.

You know, making statements such as yours without the facts to back them could be construed as pig squeeling by some. :grin:

Of course, I am confident you do indeed have those numbers from your personal involvment so will share them with us soon.

[ 05-10-2003, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

TheRogue · 05-10-2003, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Yes we do. Why is this the government's responsibility though? Would people really not learn to read without public education? Excuse me but that is a line of s.... that gets too much press. The whole thing is dictated by a government that "know's best" and I'm sick of it. What would all of us stupid people do without the government there to take care of us and educate us? I disagree vehemently that education would be a problem, even for the poor, without government control.

Methinks Lars Larson is now posting on this board??

fisheromen · 05-10-2003, 08:36 AM

I have 4 kids, 3 school age. I am self-employed and our family income has never been over 40k a year because we have chosen to prioritize my wife staying home to teach the kids. We put the first two kids in PS initially but eventually took them out because, in helping out at the school, we were appalled at how much schooling was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (at one of the supposedly best schools in Portland) and at what a phenomenal waste of time and effort there was. With a foundation of reading and a little guidance my kids don't need experts to teach them at least through their Junior High years and beyond that I think internships (like the apprenticeships of old which will provide real learning through experience) and community college classes (which will provide credit towards that all important piece of paper) will make up the difference.

I don't mind a little sarcasm now and then and dish it out as well as I receive it, but I have to admit that your ridicule and condescension towards me from the very beginning is getting a little old even for me. Can you carry on an intelligent conversation with someone who disagrees with you without berating them? I guess if you truly don't think an intelligent person could think differently than yourself then I am worthy of your derision, and you worthy of everyone elses.

That said, as for your little civics lesson, it is precisely because I don't think the government should be charged with educating my child, or at least if they are going to do so that it should be more locally controlled, that I am participating in the democratic process. I resent people like you telling me what I should do with my kids and taking away my money to do it with. I firmly believe in personal liberty, especially when it comes to parents with their children. It is called compulsory education for a reason and fortunately the education lobby hasn't been so powerful as to shut down alternative schooling altogether, though I admit the burden of paying for public schooling and then buying curriculum on top of that is somewhat onerous.

Straydog · 05-10-2003, 01:04 PM

I am sorry if I seem condescending. My belief is that if this other than electronic written communication would likely see me differently.

I write like I speak. Straight forward and without a lot of extra explanation. Unfortuantley, tone, facial expression and my talking hands are missing here.

Funny you call me sarcastic and condescending when yet I have never called you anything but wrong in my opinion. Who is belittling and calling names here????? :whazzup:

I don't disagree that there should be more choice and alternatives in public school. I was on the board of an attempted charter school last year. We were denied funding by the district and after appealing and mediation were still turned down. We didn't have the time and energy to pursue it further at the state level.

I agree we need more parental involvment in both the social and academic education of our kids. I also am at a loss as to how we do that in the big picture.

I guess our biggest difference is that rather take my daughter out and further reduce the funding for our district down here, which I believe is doing a very good job with what they have to work with, I choose to stay with the public schools. Rather than your opinion that this is foolish and continuing down the same tired path I feel it makes more sense to change the system from within. You are free to believe the best path is to reinvent the wheel. I prefer to modify and make better that which overall has been doing a very good job. I also think it, shall we say, pushy of people to expect me to agree we need to change a statewide system because you have what you percieve to be a less than adequate experience with one public school in Portland. This isn't Portland down here and just like the resource industry folks, I don't cotton much to you city folk continually dictating policy for me. By the way, I also agree with you that we need our local control back. You see, thanks to a guy named Sizemore from the metro area, we needed to fix a property tax system that gave us much more local control of our school dollars. We can thank measure 5 for a whole lot of problems today.

You ignored the fact that we are the government and demonstrate, in my opinion, a part of the reason we do have problems bringing about change. If people choose to leave the system for home schooling, private schooling or whatever, the areas of concern of "the government" (us)changes and positive wheel modifying is more difficult. Forgive me if I am being presumptuous
but I bet while home schooling you don't spend a lot of time interacting with the school board or individual schools working to make them better.

[ 05-10-2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

fisheromen · 05-10-2003, 04:25 PM

My quote "If we are going to talk about rants and untruths and lack of solutions, do you have any idea how powerful a lobby the NEA is? They have a vested interest in protecting the status quo and dampening any competition. They don't represent children but teachers. There are solutions and innovations that will lead to solutions out there but they are fought tooth and nail by this lobby and many people buy into their propaganda."

Your summary of my quote, "And in closing. It is not a fact that the public school lobby has completly closed down any alternative education opportunity. Why do you say this when it is untrue?"

Dude?

fisheromen · 05-10-2003, 04:36 PM

"You ignored the fact that we are the government and demonstrate, in my opinion, a part of the reason we do have problems bringing about change. If people choose to leave the system for home schooling, private schooling or whatever, the areas of concern of "the government" (us)changes and positive wheel modifying is more difficult. Forgive me if I am being presumptuous
but I bet while home schooling you don't spend a lot of time interacting with the school board or individual schools working to make them better."

My opting out of the state system isn't due to one bad experience. I've had limitted interaction with the PPS board but I do vote. And I am content with doing whatever I can to get other people to question the prevailing dogma that we are stuck with what we got and that there are no other options.

We do have a significant disagreement in that I think the current PE system is rather pathetic and a monumental waste of human resources (including kids). I believe that dramatic reform would have untold benefits for our society. I'm not interested in incremental changes from within the system that prolong it's agonizing demise. I'd rather work to bring some radical changes.

TheRogue · 05-10-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

We do have a significant disagreement in that I think the current PE system is rather pathetic and a monumental waste of human resources (including kids). I believe that dramatic reform would have untold benefits for our society. I'm not interested in incremental changes from within the system that prolong it's agonizing demise. I'd rather work to bring some radical changes.

ONCE AGAIN, what are your proposed changes?? I think it's great you have an experienced history, math, science, humanities, and computer specialist teacher for a wife at home :whazzup: :whazzup: , but what about the rest of us?

TR

Straydog · 05-10-2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisheromen:
It is called compulsory education for a reason and fortunately the education lobby hasn't been so powerful as to shut down alternative schooling altogether, though I admit the burden of paying for public schooling and then buying curriculum on top of that is somewhat onerous.

Oops. My error and apologies. I misread this quote to say the education lobby HAS been so powerful as to shut down alternative schooling altogether.

I stand corrected and again apologize.

[ 05-10-2003, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Straydog · 05-11-2003, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisheromen:
We put the first two kids in PS initially but eventually took them out because, in helping out at the school, we were appalled at how much schooling was dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (at one of the supposedly best schools in Portland) and at what a phenomenal waste of time and effort there was.

I resent people like you telling me what I should do with my kids and taking away my money to do it with.

1. In this quote you site one school experience as your reason to pull your kids. I based my response on your statement as quoted above. Perhaps there is a reason you withheld the 'rest of the story' if there indeed is one? Also, I gather from another part of your response that you vote so you feel that is enough involvement with the board, is that a correct assumption?

2. I have not told you what to do with your kids and if you are sending me money, where is it?? I could use it! By the way, "resent" is a pretty strong word. Heck, you haven't even met me!

To quote you once again............. Dude?

And to reiterate TR's question in hopes of an answer, what do you propose we do and how would we get there? What radical change should we instill right now that would accomplish your goal?

[ 05-11-2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

fisheromen · 05-11-2003, 09:39 AM

As posted elsewhere, here is the short answer. There are plenty of alternatives but my impression, and I freely admit it is just that, is that there is strong opposition to them from some very powerful groups such as the NEA and it's state counterparts.

Start by electing school board members who will decentralize schooling and continue the road towards fiscal responsibility. Some who will stand up to the union.

Create competition through a voucher system which has shown to be effective in other places. IF THE GOAL IS TRULY AN EDUCATED PUBLIC then give a tax credit incentive to homeschoolers because their kids are demonstrably well educated. Encourage minorities to homeschool (5% of African Americans now homeschool which gives them a huge advantage over their counterparts languishing with their peers in an undisciplined PS environment).

fisheromen · 05-11-2003, 10:10 AM

Straydog, sorry I got so ****ed off at you. Sometimes when I think stuff is rolling off my back it really isn't.

I would be so interested in the budget your charter school was going to operate under and how it compares to other schools in the district down there.

Obviously you are very committed to public schooling and are actively involved and passionate about it. It seems you are also not one of these people who just stays with the status quo because that is how it has always been.

For me, I was not willing to stay within the system and try to change it precisely for the same reason that you don't want to let anybody try and work out their "social agenda" while your kid is in school. They only have so many formative years and based on my own experience in PS, my kids experiences there, and what I gather from reading and talking with others, I don't want to see them dumbed down in a PS. It is, I admit, very selfish - they are my kids!

Have you been exposed to Gatto's books? It was because of reading "The Underground History..." this last year that I realized that I needed to be more concerned and hopefully involved in bringing about change to the PS system in whatever small ways I, as an "outsider" could.

Finally, there is this common perception or argument which The Rogue voiced that learning to read or do basic math, science, computer, or whatever takes experts. My contention is that the kinds of basics that kids learn in their elementary years and even through JH are easily taught to most kids with individual attention and good curriculum. I think kids are smarter than we give them credit for and that Public Schooling often masks this.

My kids have become excellent at reading simply by taking the time to sit down with them and work on their phonics and then help them begin reading. That has formed the basis for them utilizing curriculum in other areas that, with our guidance, has enabled them to excel in math, geography, science, history and theology.

TheRogue · 05-11-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

and theology.

I thought so......

Cool Texan · 05-11-2003, 03:31 PM

Straydog · 05-11-2003, 04:41 PM

Fisheromen,

No problem. I have been known to get testy over passionate issues as well.

Actually we did not have hard numbers for a budget as we did not get that far to know what our lease expense from the district and other overhead nor attendance would be. We would have recieved 80% of the ADM dollars for the students we drew. We had probably 20 to 25 families interested but it was very tough to sell a product with no no product to sell. Kind of a chicken and egg thing. We could not get solid commitments from parents until we could tell them specifics of the school plan. We could not get the district to agree to supporting us until we could show enough interest to warrant the percieved "loss" of revenue to the district. Obviously the union folks were not excited about us using non certified, retired and volunteer teachers.

Our general plan was to use the minimum certified teachers allowed for our projected attendance. It was looking like three certified and a number of volunteers varying again with enrollment, class dispersment and need.

It was to be just what you lable the current system, an experiment. My interest was to build more alternatives into the system to try to capture some of the kids that are leaving. I am a believer that one size does not fit all.

It would have been a low budget deal with no lunch service and no transportation. There was to be no principal but a head teacher. While not legally binding, we were planning on getting parental comitment for a specifed number of volunteer hours or in kind contribution as a criteria for attendance.

I agree that with one on one attention most kids can learn incredibly fast however not all home school situations are succesful just as not all public school experiences are not succesful.

While I certainly have no qualms with you choosing to teach your children theology, I have to be honest and say I find it real interesting that you put my use of the term social agenda in quotes and then go on to at least imply that you believe theology should be taught in school. Looks like I was pretty accurate in my assesment.

I would be happy to try to answer any questions I can concerning charter schools but realize the bulk of our time and energy was attempting to get the district to go along with our efforts and support us. Knowing what I know now, two years later and where our budget is today, I am not sure I could support this experiment at this time either. If we can get to a point where we are not firing teachers, administrators and office staff as well as dropping programs, I would be interested in pursuing something again perhaps. I do believe we need to make efforts to have more alternatives in public schools.

I have not read any of the material you mentioned. Unfortunately my pleasure reading time is very limited. Schools are not my only passion and I am involved in other ways that take time as well. Plus, I have made a pledge to myself that I WILL spend more time fishing this yea! So far I have done so!

You speak of what you have accomplished with your daughter and I share your pride and agree it can be done with the commitment you make as a parent. Our daughter is an Advanced Reading third grader reading at 5th grade level. We, my wife and I, help make sure she is challenged as do her teachers, I believe. She has a sister 11 years older that graduated near the top of her class in 2000. (I never claimed to be a planner.

)
We are a tight, functional family that dosen't have a lot of the struggles other do, thank God!

On the other hand, it is the others, less fortunate that worry me most. Those whose parents won't be sure they don't slip through the cracks, any of them. My wife volunteers as a SMART (start making a reader today program). She and a lot of other good people spend an hour a week reading to under acheiving readers at our Elementary school. Last year she read to a child that came from a home in which there were no books, according to the SMART volunteer coordinator. That's right, I said NO Books. Now how prepared do you think this kid was to enter school? Is it the kids or the school's fault? Nope, but the law, morality and the common good demand that we educate them. This year she has a boy that is just now starting to say his ABC's outloud. He is a first grader and had no quality preperation from his parents before entering school, he can not even talk well. She has had two that come from households where English is the second language. Mom and dad still communicate in Spanish at her home. Dose she have as equal an opportunity to quality education as our kids do? Shouldn't she?

Public education should not become a dumping ground, another bad experiment in social structuring as the inner city "projects" and the problems that they have created were.

Those with the resources and money prosper more and those without drop farther down the ladder. It is not conducive to a healthy society nor the responsible thing to do in my mind.

If we don't give them a good education young, as you say, we will indeed pay the price in the long run. This too makes it real hard to dictate what is enough in terms of commitment to education. Do we want to pay to educate or pay greater social costs (tangible and not) as they become adults?

[ 05-11-2003, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

fisheromen · 05-11-2003, 09:20 PM

Hey Rogue, you know, if you need a way to write me off that bad it's just fine, go ahead. Seems just a little shallow to me though.

PapaHog · 05-11-2003, 10:02 PM

I will vote no until I believe the school system is spending the money they get in a responsible manner.

My grandson is in public school because my son cannot afford private school. Vouchers seem to me to be the answer and then all parents could choose the best school and not just the rich.

IN FACT no new taxes.

fisheromen · 05-11-2003, 10:09 PM

"While I certainly have no qualms with you choosing to teach your children theology, I have to be honest and say I find it real interesting that you put my use of the term social agenda in quotes and then go on to at least imply that you believe theology should be taught in school. Looks like I was pretty accurate in my assesment."

Actually I didn't go on to say anything else so you read something into my statement that simply wasn't there. It's interesting you would make that assessment (assumption?) though.

You called what I think a social agenda, what do you think compulsory public schooling started as and still is? What is any opinion about it if not reflective of a social agenda. I guess I missed the point of saying I had some "social agenda" as if it was some hidden, evil, scheming thing instead of talking about the issues at hand.

I believe very firmly in preserving personal liberty whenever possible. I don't believe that providing opportunity to the underpriveleged has to happen at the expense of taking away the opportunities the "priveleged" might have.

I think that part of this whole debate is reflective of a problem that occurs whenever govt. becomes involved with social issues. Why would we do something we have entrusted to the government? When we pay taxes for education and social services it becomes easier as a society to assume that government will assume responsibility for those things. I'm not saying it's right, it's just human nature.

What I wrote above all sounds a little caustic, not sure how else to say it this late at night though. :smile:

fisheromen · 05-11-2003, 10:26 PM

[ 05-11-2003, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: fisheromen ]

Straydog · 05-12-2003, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisheromen:

You called what I think a social agenda, what do you think compulsory public schooling started as and still is? What is any opinion about it if not reflective of a social agenda. I guess I missed the point of saying I had some "social agenda" as if it was some hidden, evil, scheming thing instead of talking about the issues at hand.

Why would we do something we have entrusted to the government? When we pay taxes for education and social services it becomes easier as a society to assume that government will assume responsibility for those things. I'm not saying it's right, it's just human nature.

Let us remember this is electronic communication and words like social agenda mean just that, social agenda. I did not say anything about hidden, evil or schemeing. However,I think you made that jump when I used the words, didn't you? (in fact, I would go so far as to say it ticked you off.)
You listed Theology as something that you teach in your home schooling. Perhaps I did make a jump when I assumed that you felt Theology should be taught in school, you tell me.

You are right, public education is a social agenda aimed at giving everyone, regardless of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual preference or income level an equal education based on the principals of our Constitution.

Given your expalanation of what you expect from your daughter' education, Theology is indeed part of your desired social agenda as I read your comments. If my assumption is correct, there in lies a big problem. Our constitution says we shall seperate the church and the state. We have state run schools out of neccesity just as we have chosen orderly governmental organization and management over chaos in many aspects of our society; military, police, fire, parks, social security, medicare, medicade, etc, etc.
People long before our time learned that without some sort of governmental managment chaos reigned and it was not a good thing.

Your right to teach your children the religious beliefs you hold should be held in tact, just not in the public schools. I am not interested in having my time or my daughters time wasted as we enter into the huge fight we would if we were to promote any religious social agenda through the school system.

So, where do we draw the line between government and chaos? Is it ok for government to assume responsibilty for police protection and social services but not education or are you saying we should disband all government because it makes us lazy and unwilling to take care of ourselves?
I guess I have more faith in human nature. I know that if push came to shove the government would take care of my mother in the nursing home but I choose to manage her resources so that she can still pay for her own care. I know the government would feed me and my family if we were hungry yet I choose to work hard and earn my own living. I know my government will protect my family yet I keep guns where I can access them should my family be in harms way. I know the government will educate my children yet I am very involved in their education and contribute to it on many levels.

So, I guess again, we are all different and all have different motivations for what we do and don't do. Knowing Government is out there does not make me jump on the band wagon and I dare say if the threat were as prevalant as you seem to believe, we would be having a much different conversation. Yes, there are those that do take advantage of the system however I guess I don't see it as so broken that we need to disband it.

Straydog · 05-12-2003, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PapaHog:
Vouchers seem to me to be the answer and then all parents could choose the best school and not just the rich.

IN FACT no new taxes.

Papa,
I disagree. What is to stop people that are able to supplement their voucher with private funds in order to be able to afford a better school? If that turns out to be a private school, then we have the state helping pay for private school. Further, you would likely have the state paying for religous schools. Neither case is acceptable to me with my tax dollars, thank you.

As for NO NEW TAXES, what services would you like to see us start cutting? How long have you maintained at a given income base without cutting something?

We are right on the verge of hearing our more conservative state legislators start admiting that "no new taxes" was and is a pipe dream. Get ready for new taxes or reduction of tax shelters to increase revenue. It is coming very soon.....

fisheromen · 05-12-2003, 06:36 AM

Straydog, I can't win man. Nowhere have I ever even begun to insinuate what you are saying about religious education. Read my posts. Your own bias is reading it in there for you. Instead I talk about the value of personal liberty and free choice, especially as it relates to raising one's own kids. I mention Theology in one place and you jump all over it. It seems to me to be a fairly normal thing to give your kids an idea of who God is and what different religions believe about him at home.

My point about government is that as a society, once we assign gov't a responsibility we tend to wash our hands of it. Health care, care for the poor and indigent, education all used to be the domain of private charities (mostly Christian) who did a bang up job until evangelical Christianity went through a significant shift earlier last century. Now that people pay taxes to have gov't involvement in these arenas there is not the same shouldering of responsibility by your average guy on the street. That's just reality.

You even mention fire depts. Those all started out as primarily volunteer.

The point isn't that we don't need government, it's that we shouldn't be blind to the trade offs. The more socialistic we become the less personal responsibility will be exercised. Is that not obvious?

When you apply that to public schooling the reality is that why wouldn't a parent or society which is spending 11k a year for the gov't to educate a child expect that the child would indeed be educated and that they had fulfilled their responsibility to educate that child by paying taxes? Especially for a guy busting his but 60 hrs a week and watching a healthy chunk of his wages disappear in taxes?

IM NOT SAYING IT IS RIGHT OR UNIVERSAL, OR THAT THE SOLUTION IS TO ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT. I'M JUST SAYING IT IS TYPICAL HUMAN NATURE AND SO LET'S BE AWARE OF THE TRADE OFFS WHEN WE ASSIGN GOVERNMENT THE RESPONSIBILITES INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS HAVE TRADITIONALLY CARED FOR.

Straydog · 05-12-2003, 06:46 AM

Ok, perhaps I did read too much into your earlier post. Is it fair then to say we should not be teaching Christianity as the sole religion in our schools and that probably religion should not be a major player in our schools curriculum at all?

Quote:

Originally posted by fisheromen:
IM NOT SAYING IT IS RIGHT OR UNIVERSAL, OR THAT THE SOLUTION IS TO ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT. I'M JUST SAYING IT IS TYPICAL HUMAN NATURE AND SO LET'S BE AWARE OF THE TRADE OFFS WHEN WE ASSIGN GOVERNMENT THE RESPONSIBILITES INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS HAVE TRADITIONALLY CARED FOR.

Ok, no problem. I am aware of it.

I still think you are making a mistake to attack public education as you do but I am thinking that fully aware of what you said above. Is that better? :whazzup: (by the way, speaking of tradition, schools were one of the first things a new community would establish if you look back historicly, but you still seem to think we shouldn't rely on government for education..... you are hard to track!!?!.....might be part of our communication problem? ) Government is intended to supply and support the framework for it's intended services and to carry those unable to carry themselves. We should not believe that just because we support it with taxes we have no responsiblitily to contribute to our children's education and you and I are living proof that not all do. I think that rather than attack the institution, you should be targeting those that don't use it properly.

I also think you were right about 4 volumes back when you suggested we had worn this topic out.

Good luck in your home schooling. I hope your kids are well prepared when you decide to mainstream them back into public schools and I bet they will be. :smile:

[ 05-12-2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Gus Orviston · 05-12-2003, 08:45 AM

geek, not sure if you post...so far back there now...was in response to mine. I don't mean to say that only those with kids pay for schools. What I said was why is it those with kids pay less for the schools? You shouldn't get a discount for having kids, if you can't afford them don't have them.

Of course public safety is a need for all as is the education. As I stated, I think everybody should pay for the schools...even those that have kids :shocked: And those that have kids, will use more of the public services than everyboy else will statistcally. With more people in a house you are more likely to need fire, police, medical etc... Again, why are families with children not expected to pay for their services at an equal rate?

Question for those that are lamenting the lack of quality in the schools this year, and saying that what are we going to do if we have a few bad years...? GREAT QUESTION. What are you doing? are you spending more time tutoring your kids as a result of the cut backs? Are you helping them to go above the current expectations for the school year, are you and your family spending more time making up the difference?

gus

Fish'nDude · 05-12-2003, 03:41 PM

A friend of mine just sent me a copy of this and the slide show to go with it. Thought I'd through this in. I think he nails it.
Anybody who would like an orginal copy and the powerpoint slide show I would be happy to send it to you. I don't know how to post the slide show here.

Text of Rob Kremer�s Remarks to the Portland Rotary Club
In debate with Diane Linn, Multnomah County Chair

Tuesday April 29th, 2003

As a person who has devoted his professional life for the last eight years to improving the public education system in Oregon, it feels rather odd to be here today to argue against an income tax increase that would bring needed resources to the schools.

Yet, that is what I am going to do. I�m here to convince you that you should vote against Measure 26-48.

The reason I am against this tax increase boils down to one basic proposition. Which is:

The fiscal problems facing the schools are not caused by a lack of resources.

I�ll admit that this is a counterintuitive proposition. We hear report after report of cuts the schools are forced to make: extracurricular activities � gone. Art and music programs � gone. Class size � going up. Days in the school year � going down.

All these are true. They are really happening. It is not just sky-is-falling rhetoric.

So how can I stand here and say that the problem is not lack of money? If more money would solve the problems � buy back all the cuts � then obviously, the problem is lack of money � right?

Well, no, it�s wrong. The problem is the cost structure of our public schools. Simply put, our public school system operates on a cost structure that is far too high, and that cannot be sustained.

Because of various structural reasons which I do not have time to go into today, school district costs increase each year at a rate that far outpaces their annual growth in revenues. I call this the �Expense Gap�. In Portland, the expense gap is particularly large.

The best way to illustrate this is to look at the proposed budget that came from PPS a couple weeks ago. In its budget the district provided two scenarios � one that assumes the tax increase passes, and one assumes it does not. You can get these figures yourself off the district web site.

First, the rosy scenario: tax increase passes [SLIDE2] The district�s current year general fund is $351 million. According to the district, in order to avoid cuts, (in other words � in order to maintain the �current service level�) their general fund budget next year will have to be $396 million.

This is nearly a 13% increase. In other words, just to stay even, the district needs 13% more money. Anything less than 13% more revenue will require �cuts�.

What if revenues don�t grow by 13%? PPS gave us scenario B � the tax increase fails. [SLIDE 3] Based on the funding levels anticipated next year from the legislature, the district�s general fund would drop from $351 million to $337 million - a 4% decrease.

What impact will a 4% decrease have upon the district? According to scenario B, among other cuts, 495 teachers would have to be laid off, resulting in a 50% increase in the �staffing ratio� from 30 to 46. (In the newspaper reports today about the budget as it passed last night, these numbers had changed. They now say that 650 teachers would have to be released, driving class size up by 30%.)

But the upshot is: the cost structure of PPS is such that it needs 13% more revenue each year just to stay even, and if it does not get it, its primary cost-management tool is laying off staff and increasing class size.

Notice here what scenario B did not propose: It did not propose solving the budget problem by, say, cutting administrator salaries by 25% and teacher salaries by 8%, which would result in the same savings.

That�s what I mean when I say the school district cost structure is too high. Think of your own businesses, or the organizations in which you are involved. As an executive, what would your response be if your staff told you that it cost 13% more to do the same thing as last year? In the middle of a recession? You might at least ask why.

Well, I have done a fair amount of analysis of school and school district cost structure in Oregon. I have some sympathy for school district management, because in a very real sense they have little control over their cost structure. A good deal of their operating cost increases are artifacts of state and federal mandates such as PERS and special education.

But they CAN control employee costs, especially when a budget cycle coincides with a collective bargaining cycle as it did this winter for PPS

We are in a recession. We all know that tax receipts are lower in a recession. A contract negotiation in the middle of a recession is an opportunity to recognize the reality that other Oregonians face each and every day. It is an opportunity to make a lasting change in cost structure.

PPS had just such an opportunity in the contract negotiations this winter. For awhile it looked as if they were finally going to get employee costs under control. They demanded limits on health insurance costs. They demanded a wage freeze. They seemed to recognize that things had changed, and their survival depended on adjusting their cost structure.

But at the moment of truth, at the very moment the inevitable teacher strike vote was taken on the east side of town at the Convention Center, on the west side of town, in City Hall, a deal was being struck between city, county and school district politicians that would allow PPS and other Multnomah County schools to continue to act as if we were still in the roaring 90�s.

Opportunity lost.

The centerpiece of the deal was the tax increase we�ll be voting on next month. With the promise of the tax increase, the district gave up on its demand to control health care costs, and it flinched on its wage freeze. It totally abandoned its effort to get its cost structure under control.

So we�re voting on a tax increase. The question essentially being asked of the people of Multnomah County is: �Would you be willing to contribute more money so that the schools can delay the day of reckoning when they must get their cost structure under control?�

Because rest assured � even if Measure 26-48t passes, that day of reckoning will come, and soon. School fiscal problems are not even close to being solved.

Mark my words - at budget time next year the Portland School District will face a shortfall for the 2004/05 school year in the neighborhood of $40 million. This is virtually guaranteed. Here�s why:

The district�s costs will again increase by something around 13%, while revenues, including the new tax, will increase only 3% or so. The expense gap at work. [SLIDE 4] At PPS the expense gap is roughly 10%. Expense growth outpaces revenue growth by 10% a year. You can see that next year, expense gap results in a budget problem of over $40 million.

So yes, the $51 million from the tax increase will allow the district to fund the current 10% expense gap. But what revenue source will fill the gap for the following year? And the next? Unless the cost structure changes, the 10% gap will be there every year, requiring layoffs and program cuts.

Has the district given us any plan that shows, if we pass this tax measure, how it will lower its cost structure over the next few years so that its expense growth matches revenue growth? No.

Instead, it continues to hope for a miracle, thinking the legislature will somehow come up with enough money to fill their gap.

The fact is, this will not happen. If the legislature tried to allocate enough dollars from the state general fund to fill the expense gap for Oregon schools, then by the year 2011-13, the K-12 portion of the state budget would consume more than the entire general fund.

It�s a cost structure problem.

Unless the legislature and the school districts work to change the cost structure so schools can flourish in an environment of 3% revenue growth, we can very easily predict the future for public schools in Oregon:

Perpetual crisis.

That is the best case scenario, whether this tax measure passes or not. Which is why I think we should spend our efforts working to change our school system cost structure, rather than lurching from crisis to crisis in a never-ending search for additional resources to fund the built-in expense gap.

The people promoting this tax increase want us to believe that our schools are underfunded, that Oregonians are sting, and the solution is more money. We�re given lots of evidence: (increased class sizes, program cuts, old textbooks) but what we almost never get is good data about what the schools actually spend.

That is, until last November, when The Oregon School Boards Association released a study that gave us, once and for all, an honest and complete accounting for how much Oregon�s schools spend, where the money goes, and how it compares with other states.

Here is what the School Boards study found:

1) [SLIDE5] Total per-student spending in Oregon grew from $6200/student in 1991 to more than $10,000 per student in 2001. This is during and after the Measure 5 era, when we were told that school budgets were being slashed.

2) [SLIDE6]Oregon spends significantly more per-student than all of our western neighbors, and than the national average.
- Idaho $6,029
- Washington $7,200
- California $6,837
- Oregon $8,593
- National Average $7,640

Obviously, it is hard to argue that Oregonians are underfunding our schools when we spend far more than our neighbors. The question we should be asking is:

�Why, if we spend more than other states, are we always in
fiscal crisis?�

The answer, of course, lies in cost-structure � which brings us back to the expense gap.

3) The School Boards study also asked the question: where does the money go? If we spend more than other states and are still always in fiscal crisis, where is the money going? Here�s what they found: [SLIDE 7]
- Oregon sends a lower % of the educational dollar on instruction � that is, less money reaches the classroom;
- Oregon has more bureaucracy (measured in �non-teacher staff per teacher�);
- Oregon spends more on employee benefits than any state other than Rhone Island;
- More than 15,000 per employee.

So what should we do? The people in charge � the education establishment - have created a school system with a cost structure that requires 13% annual revenue increases just to stay even. Now that boom times are over, they are basically telling us that they are unable run the school system with the available resources.

But what if someone else can? Just because those in charge now can�t do it doesn�t mean that it cannot be done.

The good news is that there are public schools operating in Oregon today that have a dramatically lower cost structure than the district-operated schools. And they are succeeding.

Charter schools run on about half of the per-student cost of other schools. They�re more efficient because they�re locally controlled. They aren�t run by bureaucrats, but by their own site councils. They have the autonomy they need to adjust their cost structure in changing times, and they are freed from some costly regulations.

When those now in charge of our schools tell us that unless they get a 13% increase each year they will put 45 kids in each class � when those now in charge tell us that they are unable to run the schools with the money available, maybe we should tell them: we know someone who can!

And when they tell us the problem is lack of money, we should tell them: [SLIDE 8]

�No, it�s the cost structure, stupid�

Thumper · 05-12-2003, 03:49 PM

Finally! Logic!!!!

Gus Orviston · 05-12-2003, 05:07 PM

I guess I am missing the proof that the expense gap is hardwired, this comment implies it.

I would need more than what is said in the material to make the leap with the author.

Quote:

The district’s costs will again increase by something around 13%, while revenues, including the new tax, will increase only 3% or so. The expense gap at work. [SLIDE 4] At PPS the expense gap is roughly 10%. Expense growth outpaces revenue growth by 10% a year. You can see that next year, expense gap results in a budget problem of over $40 million.

fisheromen · 05-13-2003, 06:09 AM

One way to look at it would be to take the $6200 figure from '91 and the 10,000 figure from 2001. What percentage increase is that per year? It ain't 13% but it ain't 3% either so maybe the truth is somewhere in between (or maybe the rate of growth is on more of an exponential scale :grin: ). I think the article points out the basic problem that costs continue to outpace inflation and job and population growth in the area dramatically. That is unsustainable and creates perpetual crises.

Silver Hilton · 05-13-2003, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fisheromen:
One way to look at it would be to take the $6200 figure from '91 and the 10,000 figure from 2001. What percentage increase is that per year? It ain't 13% but it ain't 3% either so maybe the truth is somewhere in between (or maybe the rate of growth is on more of an exponential scale :grin: ). I think the article points out the basic problem that costs continue to outpace inflation and job and population growth in the area dramatically. That is unsustainable and creates perpetual crises.

It's 4.89% average increase.

snowball · 05-13-2003, 07:17 AM

Gus, I may have sent you an email by error. sorry

To those who don't feel they need to pay anything.

I'm curious as to who paid for your education? Did you pay them back? You probably are now. I think there is alot of overhaul that needs to take place. More money isn't the solution now, however, after the fat is trimmed, lets take another look. The School system needs to be run like a business. When times get tuff, you get lean. If you have the experience, you see the tuff times before they come, and you prepare.

This is a bit off topic, but many folks without kids, grip about having to pay extra taxes for "others" kids. They soon forget and or sometimes don't relize that when they were kids, someone else was paying the tax. When it comes to public education, you recieve it on credit. You don't recieve it, then not expect to pay something back down the road.

Straydog · 05-13-2003, 07:27 AM

Snowball,

I can't talk for Sherwood, Portland, Hillsboro, Beaverton or any of the other districts in the state except ours. (Three Rivers School Dist. - Josephine County)

I am on the budget committee. I have scoured our budget over and over just as I did the last biennium when I was also on the Budget Committee.
We have cut the vast majority of the fat. I can today find a couple of Asst. Principals I think we can do without and we will be going over the co-curricular expenditures looking for some savings but we are having to cut 12% from our budget which is a little over 5 million dollars.

The fat has been cut and I am tired of hearing "cut the fat" as we are down to muscle tissue and guts.

Cool Texan · 05-13-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
The fat has been cut and I am tired of hearing "cut the fat" as we are down to muscle tissue and guts.

Sounds like its time to amputate then.

Budget reductions are rough, but necessary in hard times.

snowball · 05-13-2003, 08:04 AM

straydog-- my comment was a general statement- I have brother teaching in a beat up school district and another lifelong friend that teaches down near dallas. It's the same story across the board. NO money No money No money

I am sure you have looked at the bugets and have done what you can. Times are tuff, and I for one do support a tax that would have funds going direct to education. I support a sales tax, luxery tax, etc. Just so long as the funds are directed to education.

Straydog · 05-13-2003, 08:10 AM

Snowball,

Thanks for the clarification however general terms like that seem to become the mantra of land while in many cases people are suffering whether it be in education, services for the elderly or health care.

If we cut just 10% of the tax shelters in this state we could fund education without one tax increase.

Do you know that second and third homes create a healthy tax shelter and leave millions of dollars on the table? Do you know that Motorhomes count as second homes?

[ 05-13-2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Cool Texan · 05-13-2003, 08:12 AM

If you spend enough time in it each year, yes...and why wouldnt it?

Straydog · 05-13-2003, 08:14 AM

Because it is a luxury in probably something like 90% of the cases.

Cool Texan · 05-13-2003, 08:23 AM

What if someone travels for their work, and drives from city to city with whatever they do or sell, and live out of it for 6 months a year. Is that not a second home?

What about retired folks who spend their days driving all across the country, living in it...is that not their home?

And as you are fond of saying, I assume you have some way to substantiate the 90% figure...right?

[ 05-13-2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Cool Texan ]

Gus Orviston · 05-13-2003, 08:42 AM

Well, I don't agree you recieve your K-12 on credit, because if you leave the state/country you are gone, so that analogy isn't spot on. It is more of an investment we make in our society an the payback are well educated employable citizens. Investment <> Credit.

I don't see anybody saying those without kids shouldn't pay taxes for schools. I have said Those with kids should pay taxes and not get a tax cut for having them in the first place.

gus