Democracies and Mutual Respect

I wonder what "limited" means to you okie?

It is pretty easy to find out much of the federal budget was spent on education.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

In 1967, it was 2.3% of the Federal budet
In 1979 it was 2.5%
It was 1.9% from 1989-91
It was 1.9% of the Fed budget every year from 1996-2001
It was 2.7% in 2004.

Federal Government spending on education did not skyrocket after the creation of the Dept of Education as it's own department seperate from Dept of Health Education and Welfare.

Just adjust for inflation and and education spending doesn't even double from 1967 to 2000. 17 billion to 33 billion. That is at a time that the Federal budget adjusted for inflation almost tripled. 734 billion to 2,035 billion.

Federal Education spending hasn't really changed that much on a per person basis from the 60s to today.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I wonder what "limited" means to you okie?

It is pretty easy to find out much of the federal budget was spent on education.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

In 1967, it was 2.3% of the Federal budet
In 1979 it was 2.5%
It was 1.9% from 1989-91
It was 1.9% of the Fed budget every year from 1996-2001
It was 2.7% in 2004.

Federal Government spending on education did not skyrocket after the creation of the Dept of Education as it's own department seperate from Dept of Health Education and Welfare.

Just adjust for inflation and and education spending doesn't even double from 1967 to 2000. 17 billion to 33 billion. That is at a time that the Federal budget adjusted for inflation almost tripled. 734 billion to 2,035 billion.

Federal Education spending hasn't really changed that much on a per person basis from the 60s to today.

So,even thought the dems constantly harp on how important education is,and how little we are spending,even you admit that they have done nothing to increase govt spending on education.

They are just talking,instead of actually doing something.
I thought only repubs did that.

0 Replies

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/title1.gif

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/investment.gif

Funding under NCLB. Detail in next chart.
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
This graph shows that the federal investment in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act rose from under $2 billion in 1966 to $15 billion in 2000 and $25 billion in 2005

SOURCE

Even adjusting for inflation, the numbers are impressive.

0 Replies

Fox,
Your first chart is grants for disadvantaged children. The chart has nothing to do with the statement underneath it and doesn't show that at all. The chart goes from about 2 billion to about 14 billion. Read the statement and compare it to the chart. It appears your site has 2 charts mixed up with the sources listed wrong beneath them
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#2

Reading the statement of dollars spent per year for education and finding the right chart, lets deal with it. The problem is the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation Fox. Current Dollars are current for the year. Constant dollars are adjusted for the year 2000 using inflation adjustment.

Adjusted they are for total spending - (Using deflater from table 1.3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf)
1980 - $212 billion
1990 - $315 billion
2000 - $442 billion
2003 - $468 billion

Of course those are total numbers and don't reflect per student spending.

The NCES numbers can be found here...
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/lt2.asp#c2_9
They list constant where they have both constant and current. (Like in per pupil spending.) If they don't list constant, we need to assume current. And current dollars on NCES site match up with the figures in Historical budget tables current figures.

Interesting numbers in this table. They show that the % of Federal funds that schools have is actually down from what it was in the 60s and 70s befoe the Dept of education

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt156.asp

In 1965 7.9% of K-12 funds came from Feds. In 1970 it was 8.4%. In 1975 - 8.9% 1980 - 9.2% 1981 - 7.4% Then in 1985 it is only 6.7%. It barely gets above 7% after that.

Since the inception of the Dept of Education, it appears that the amount of funding from the Feds for local k-12 schools has dropped as a % of overall funding.

The numbers show your argument to be false okie. The Feds don't contribute more of the funding to local schools now than they did before 1979.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,even thought the dems constantly harp on how important education is,and how little we are spending,even you admit that they have done nothing to increase govt spending on education.

They are just talking,instead of actually doing something.
I thought only repubs did that.

Unfortunately, you are not the only one that fails to understand who controls the agenda for Congress. Look at who is the President and who is in charge in Congress before you make such sweeping statements that prove we need better schools.

0 Replies

Enough about schools already. There are threads dealing with this.

It is a derailment when people trot out "facts" that don't have much basis in reality. Personally I think it shows lack of respect for yourself to do such a thing, let alone disrespect for others.

0 Replies

Fox asked me:
Just out of curiosity, how is teaching intelligent design in a comparative religion class or theology class opposed to anything that is taught in Catholicism?

In response to a statement that already answered her question. See above.

0 Replies

Earlier, I brought up the issue of teaching debate as it was taught when I was in high school. I restated the notion. Using proper debate tactics might help.

--------------

Now, for something completely different.

I also mentioned the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, there is no commandment ordering humans to respect the political ideas of other humans. Should we then conclude that it is neither religious nor "moral" nor ethical to do so within the context of Christianity or Judaism, the two religions that share the Old Testament and the 10 Commandments?

On the other hand, in the New Testament, Jesus drove the money-lenders from the Temple. Now, a cogent argument can be made that Jesus, as the Son of God and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, knew that the role of Jews as money-lenders would cause them a great deal of trouble in the future. A cogent argument could be made -- and has been, over and over -- that Jesus laid the foundation for the separation of church and state in this action. A cogent argument could be made that the notion of free speech and its protection has nothing to do with religion or religious based morality but is a product of the Enlightenment, a secular movement which promoted ethics.

0 Replies

I wanted this to go into a separate box because it deserves its own consideration.

I have been writing about global warming. Much of what we need to address today -- immediately and on a large scale -- has to do with science and technology. The facts, I think, are clear. However, nay-sayers for what ever reasons, refuse to accept these facts.

Their refutation is based on as many different patterns of thought as there are refuters. We all know the grip that big oil has on the WH. We all know that the WH has been accused of censoring science.

There is much today that has been politicized that should not be.

I say it is unethical to politicize climate control and many other things.

However, is it ethical to allow industry/business untrammeled and unsupervised existence?

0 Replies

Another point I wish to make that is completely germane to the topic raised by littlek is the way people today react to anything.

SHould anyone, anywhere express to another person a view on anything . . . fashion, food, the weather (as opposed to the climate!) . . . the listener is apt to react with offense.

Let me explain.

I am trying to move. My hairdresser asked me if I was using a man in town as my realtor. I do not like this man, in part because when he hosted an open house that I toured, I commented that the people who redid the kitchen, made a mistake in putting the refrigerator in the laundry room. I suspect that the frig was customarily placed where the ice box had been -- for ease of the ice man -- and that no one in a succession of owners saw the light. This guy began to argue with me on how beautiful and efficient their choice was (it make the laundry so crowded that it would be impossible to carry clothes into it in a basket!) and then started in on me, suggesting that I do not cook. Hmmm. Without having read the book littlek did, I suspect this man's behavior is the type the author decries.

Well, my hairdresser took umbrage at my not liking the realtor. Just because I like her does not mean I have to use her realtor.

Another example. My former boyfriend is rather unsophisticated about food and has a limited palate. When I ate things he did not like in front of him, he made a sour face. He once used the magnetic poetry words on my frig to write, "Olives are bad food." THis is just plain rude.

If people feel they have to challenge statements about refrigerator placement or eating olives, how can they be expected to be respectful about politics.

And Okie thinks the community of caring sounds suspicious to him. On the other hand, he wrote that he doesn't want his grandchildren learning "the sky is falling science." If the matter were not so serious, Okie would simply be guilty of the same things I discuss above.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Fox,
Your first chart is grants for disadvantaged children. The chart has nothing to do with the statement underneath it and doesn't show that at all. The chart goes from about 2 billion to about 14 billion. Read the statement and compare it to the chart. It appears your site has 2 charts mixed up with the sources listed wrong beneath them
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#2

Reading the statement of dollars spent per year for education and finding the right chart, lets deal with it. The problem is the numbers aren't adjusted for inflation Fox. Current Dollars are current for the year. Constant dollars are adjusted for the year 2000 using inflation adjustment.

Adjusted they are for total spending - (Using deflater from table 1.3 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf)
1980 - $212 billion
1990 - $315 billion
2000 - $442 billion
2003 - $468 billion

Of course those are total numbers and don't reflect per student spending.

The NCES numbers can be found here...
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/lt2.asp#c2_9
They list constant where they have both constant and current. (Like in per pupil spending.) If they don't list constant, we need to assume current. And current dollars on NCES site match up with the figures in Historical budget tables current figures.

Interesting numbers in this table. They show that the % of Federal funds that schools have is actually down from what it was in the 60s and 70s befoe the Dept of education

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt156.asp

In 1965 7.9% of K-12 funds came from Feds. In 1970 it was 8.4%. In 1975 - 8.9% 1980 - 9.2% 1981 - 7.4% Then in 1985 it is only 6.7%. It barely gets above 7% after that.

Since the inception of the Dept of Education, it appears that the amount of funding from the Feds for local k-12 schools has dropped as a % of overall funding.

The numbers show your argument to be false okie. The Feds don't contribute more of the funding to local schools now than they did before 1979.

Parados, I suggest you get your scroller fixed. You apparently only looked at the first graph. I skipped that one entirely as it deals only with Title I. The graphs I used reflect all expenditures for education in one and a descriptive graph of how the funding has increased dramatically since the inception of NCLB.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The numbers show your argument to be false okie. The Feds don't contribute more of the funding to local schools now than they did before 1979.

Not so fast.
http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fnces%2Eed%2Egov%2Fpubs93%2F93442%2Epdf

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html

These links show education per student in constant dollars growing almost 10 fold from 1920 to 1990 and almost 3 fold from the early 60's to 2002. Graphs show a steepening around 1965 and again just after 1980, these dates corresponding to the increased push of federal education initiatives and the finally the successful promotion to the cabinet level Department of Education. Cost per student in constant dollars has almost doubled from the years just prior to 1979 to the present day.

Another very important point you have ignored, and one which is very difficult to measure, Parados, is how much more bureaucracy and costs are funded locally just to support federal programs? I think it is pretty significant.

Another point, considering the precipitous out of control rise in federal expenditures, such as medicare, social security, etc., the fact that federal spending on education has maintained and even slightly increased as a percentage of federal spending only indicates that it also is out of control and rising precipitously.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The numbers show your argument to be false okie. The Feds don't contribute more of the funding to local schools now than they did before 1979.

Not so fast.
http://www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=http%3A%2F%2Fnces%2Eed%2Egov%2Fpubs93%2F93442%2Epdf

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html

These links show education per student in constant dollars growing almost 10 fold from 1920 to 1990 and almost 3 fold from the early 60's to 2002. Graphs show a steepening around 1965 and again just after 1980, these dates corresponding to the increased push of federal education initiatives and the finally the successful promotion to the cabinet level Department of Education. Cost per student in constant dollars has almost doubled from the years just prior to 1979 to the present day.

Another very important point you have ignored, and one which is very difficult to measure, Parados, is how much more bureaucracy and costs are funded locally just to support federal programs? I think it is pretty significant.

Another point, considering the precipitous out of control rise in federal expenditures, such as medicare, social security, etc., the fact that federal spending on education has maintained and even slightly increased as a percentage of federal spending only indicates that it also is out of control and rising precipitously. Stating education expenditures as a percentage of the budget is a clever way to argue your point, but stating the actual numbers present a more true picture of what is happening.

0 Replies

Nothing wrong with my scroller Fox.

The problem is the website you linked to has the wrong information under the graphs. You posted the right information but the wrong graph becuase that is the way the website did it. Read the title of the red graph you posted. Then look at the title of the graph that splits out fed, local and state contributions. Now read the information under each graph. The website tranposed graphs and information. I was only trying to correct it so I could deal with your statement. It wasn't your fault but the fault of the website in mixing up the graphs.

0 Replies

Try this link. You may be right, but I think the captions under the graphs are probably right. And it was this page that I took the posted graphs from:

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#2

At any rate there are enough graphs there to get a pretty good idea of education spending in the United States.

Here's another good site condensing all federal spending into a snapshot and it illustrates how education spending fits into it along with how increases in education spending compare with other federal outlays.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=93690
(You may have to paste the link into your browser to get it to work.)

0 Replies

okie,

I started a new topic and responded to you there rather than derail this thread further

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1944136#1944136

Fox,

The graphs are transposed with the explanation. Look at the numbers on the graph and the numbers mentioned in the explanation. Look at the title of the graph and the explanation. I suggest going to the source for the information in the graphs. (NCES which I posted earlier.) Then you have to do all the adjustments that weren't done by the authors on your site to make them the same. Some of the graphs are adjusted, some not.

0 Replies

Fox,

Sites that only list 2 years of budgets are not snapshots. They are out of focus agendas. The only mention of education is in the one table.

The ENTIRE budget tables can be found here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf

Table 4.1 is where Heritage took 2 selected years from. Note the projected spending for education through 2011 in the table of the budget documents. Compare it to the Heritage use of the HIGH year of 2007. After 2007, education spending is projected to decrease by 33% by 2011 to pre 2004 levels (before inflation adjustments).

0 Replies

Sorry littlek,

I keep helping to derail. I will try to show more respect. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Parados, we are deifnitely on different pages in our assessment of what these numbers mean. The Heritage Foundation numbers I was looking at only go through 2005 and are based on actual Federal budgets. I don't know what numbers you are looking at.

And actually I'm not certain we are derailing this thread. We are demonstrating opposing points of view in a respectful manner are we not? If we keep this up, we may be able to give lessons. Smile

I agree though that we need to keep it within the framework of LittleK's topic, however, and I'll try to do better to do that.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

So,even thought the dems constantly harp on how important education is,and how little we are spending,even you admit that they have done nothing to increase govt spending on education.

They are just talking,instead of actually doing something.
I thought only repubs did that.

Unfortunately, you are not the only one that fails to understand who controls the agenda for Congress. Look at who is the President and who is in charge in Congress before you make such sweeping statements that prove we need better schools.

I didnt say anything about better schools.
I was talking exclusively about education spending,nothing more.
I know who controls spending now,but how come,if education is so important,federal education spending didnt skyrocket during the Clinton or Carter admins?

I would think,if the dems actually thought it was that important,then spending on education would have skyrocketed as a percentage of federal spending.

And now,Gov Jon Corzine (D. NJ) would be increasing spending instead of cutting education spending.

I think the dems are talking a good game,but thats all they are doing.

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know