Democracies and Mutual Respect

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

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.

I linked to the ACTUAL BUDGET.. the same source Heritage is using only the ACTUAL BUDGET with ALL the numbers from 1962-2011 not just 2 selective years.

If website cites a source, I usually prefer to go directly to the source they cited as opposed to taking their word for it. If you had followed my link you would have found out what numbers I was looking at. Another sign of respect would be to look at the other person's supporting data and accept it or refute it with a different (better) source. I guess I always think the original source is better than a think tank's interpretation of the information.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

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.

Your sweeping statement proves we need better schools. It was made from ignorance which I assume comes from lack of proper schooling. Repeating it doesn't make it any less ignorant. Read my statement again.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
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.

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.

I linked to the ACTUAL BUDGET.. the same source Heritage is using only the ACTUAL BUDGET with ALL the numbers from 1962-2011 not just 2 selective years.

If website cites a source, I usually prefer to go directly to the source they cited as opposed to taking their word for it. If you had followed my link you would have found out what numbers I was looking at. Another sign of respect would be to look at the other person's supporting data and accept it or refute it with a different (better) source. I guess I always think the original source is better than a think tank's interpretation of the information.

1990 to 2005 is two selective years? Another mark of respect might be to accept that a person is illustrating a specific point about a particular subject--in this case education expenditures. In the context of this discussion, I was not interested in discussing the entire federal budget in any way other than how education fits into it. Apparently you are. If you don't think the information I posted illustrates dramatic increases in education budgets and expenditures, then that's your prerogative. But it really does boggle the mind to throw in a notion that if the percentage of education spending is less when compared to the total budget, that is a reduction in education spending. Now that one I admit is really off the chart for me.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

]

Okay now I see what you were looking at and I get your point. They showed the first year of the current administration and the present year budget to illustrate that education spending has increased 118%. Which was my point in posting the budget information in the first place. I do not believe the current administration has shortchanged education in any way so far as funding goes.

The evidence is still out whether we are getting sufficient bang for our buck in Federal spending of course, and in my opinion we are not. I believe only Norway and Switzerland--I know its two small European countries--spend more per capita on education than does the United States. I definitely don't think we're getting our monies worth.

But the fault isn't in the amount of money allocated for education.

0 Replies

You continue to ignore that 2006 was a selective choice since it was 30% higher than most other years. (That is why I pointed you to the actual budget page.) 2006 is projected at 83 2004 was 62, 2005 at 72, 2007-2011 are 64 down to 62. And that is before inflation adjustments. They take an artificially high number and a low number to make it seem like more.

2001 is not Bush's first budget year. That was Clinton's last year.

Comparing countries based on cost of education alone is misleading. It fails to take into account the differences in cost of living. If the average salary in Country A is $20,000 and the teachers are paid $35,000 while the average salary in the US is $40,000 but teachers are paid $36,000, it is easy to see that Country A would have better qualified teachers because the pay is substantially more for its economy. It's the same thing for comparison from state to state. The cost to maintain a school in NYC is subtsantially more than in South Dakota just because the cost of living is so different.

0 Replies

Well whatever. The Heritage Foundation is certainly no fan of the current administration's spending policies and devotes considerable verbage to show how it by no means reflects conservative values about much of anything other than defense. 2001 is the year Bush took office. His actual first budget wouldn't have kicked in before 2003 for that matter.

My point is we are spending plenty of money on education and we are not getting value for it. Your point seems to be that if we spent more Federal money we would get more value. I don't see it. Perhaps you do. But for now we'll just have to disagree on that one.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well whatever. The Heritage Foundation is certainly no fan of the current administration's spending policies and devotes considerable verbage to show how it by no means reflects conservative values about much of anything other than defense. 2001 is the year Bush took office. His actual first budget wouldn't have kicked in before 2003 for that matter.

My point is we are spending plenty of money on education and we are not getting value for it. Your point is that if we spent more money we would get more value. I don't see it. Perhaps you do. But for now we'll just have to disagree on that one.

I don't recall saying anything about spending on education. I certainly never made a point that more money gives more value.

"Respect" would be to not put words in my mouth. I did it earlier to you when I said "Fox" instead of okie. I apologized for doing that.

0 Replies

Then what is your point re your protesting the graphs posted re education and disputing my comments on it. Your reference, for instance, on teacher salaries? I took that to be a discussion on education spending. If that was not your intent then I do apologize but I don't then have a clue what you were discussing.

(If we were spending just $6000 per capita per student in a 20-student classroom excluding capital expenditures, that would be $120,000 per classroom. Yet teacher are underpaid, kids are using used books or sharing books, and teachers in many places pay for some school supplies out of pocket. The budget suggests we are spending quite a bit more than that. Where is the money going?)

0 Replies

What I was discussing can be found here.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71762

Because I point out errors in your graphs doesn't mean I took the opposite opinion. Nor are there only 2 sides to the issue.

Because we spend an average cost per student doesn't mean all students are having that amount spent on them. I would suggest you start by finding the cost per student for special education and special needs. I posted the NCES research that one of your graphs came from. Try looking there.

0 Replies

I'll pass Parados because the thread has already been sidetracked and frankly I am not interested in the minutae of school funding. I am interested, however, in educating children and getting the Federal government out of programs, policies, and issues in which the Federal government is inefficient, ineffective, and more detriment than a positive force. And I do resent very much being forced to pay for stuff that is being wasted, misappropriated, and swallowed up in huge bureaucracies that do little more than perpetuate themselves. The reason education was interesting to me here is I believe it is one of those things that would fare much better if the Federal government took a significantly less prominent role.

0 Replies

It's sidetracked beyond repair - can't use that as an excuse now.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

What I was discussing can be found here.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71762

Because I point out errors in your graphs doesn't mean I took the opposite opinion. Nor are there only 2 sides to the issue.

Because we spend an average cost per student doesn't mean all students are having that amount spent on them. I would suggest you start by finding the cost per student for special education and special needs. I posted the NCES research that one of your graphs came from. Try looking there.

Has anyone seen the video Savage Inequalities? It looks into the vast differences in per capita spending in different school systems within Ohio. Some students get $5k/year and some $20k/year. The schools themselves are strikingly different. Students from poor district schools go to play sports at the high income district schools and see that difference. These schools are both public, funded by the public. How do you think it'd make the lower income student feel? One school builds a 2 million dollar gym and the other school makes students share pencils......

Remind me why I want to be a teacher?

0 Replies

Interesting observation also that some of the highest funded schools are the poorest performers and vice versa. Throwing money at something does not automatically improve it. Some of the smartest people never finished high school. Some never even went to school. Schools are way overrated.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

parados wrote:
What I was discussing can be found here.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=71762

Because I point out errors in your graphs doesn't mean I took the opposite opinion. Nor are there only 2 sides to the issue.

Because we spend an average cost per student doesn't mean all students are having that amount spent on them. I would suggest you start by finding the cost per student for special education and special needs. I posted the NCES research that one of your graphs came from. Try looking there.

Has anyone seen the video Savage Inequalities? It looks into the vast differences in per capita spending in different school systems within Ohio. Some students get $5k/year and some $20k/year. The schools themselves are strikingly different. Students from poor district schools go to play sports at the high income district schools and see that difference. These schools are both public, funded by the public. How do you think it'd make the lower income student feel? One school builds a 2 million dollar gym and the other school makes students share pencils......

Remind me why I want to be a teacher?

The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio ruled many years ago that the funding inequalities in that state were a violation of the state's constitution. Since that time, the Legislature had danced quite a jig in an effort to make it appear that they are doing something about it. They have convinced no one, including, at the last i knew of it, the Ohio Supreme Court. To my knowledge, the Legislature has never yet produced a funding plan which is satisfactory to the Supreme Court.

In Ohio, there is a School District Income Tax. This is a direct tax on earned income, and is withheld exactly as State and Federal income taxes are withheld. Whenever i completed the paperwork for a new employee, my final task would be to contact the election commission of the country in which the employee lived to determine if they were subject to the School District Income tax. Those employees resident in municipalities which levy an income tax are not liable for a School District Income Tax. Those who are liable pay a percentage of from .25% to 2% of their gross income--if their school district even levies a tax--one of our highest paid employees paid no School District Income Tax, and when the business headquarters was moved to an address for which there was no municipal tax, paid no tax at all beyond the State and Federal withholding. Additionally, as is the case in so much of the United States, school districts can put levy initiatives on the ballot to increase the property tax for the purpose of funding the schools. The holes in the system are obvious. If a child resides in a school district of a county with low property taxes, and the properties of which are not evaluated at a high rate, and their school district does not levy an Income Tax, and/or there is not a high proportion of well-paid wage earners in their school district--they might as well whistle for good schools and good educational materials. If, however, they live in a school district with an Income Tax, at a rate of 2% or nearly that amount, in an area of high employment and highly paid employees, with a large tax base, for which the voters are willing to approve school levies--they are living on easy street, educationally speaking.

I can think of few topics with regard to educational funding which are more byzantine and discouraging than school funding in Ohio.

0 Replies

Just logged in but have to immediately reply to Okie, who wrote:

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.

1.) The cost of education includes the cost of building maintenance, utilities, salaries for staff as well as for teachers. Teachers were largely single women and I wouldn't be surprised if in rural areas, a teacher's pay was still given, at least in part, in room and board.

2.) Prior to WWII, education was very low tech. Furthermore, the drop out rate was higher and fewer students went to high school. Little or no science was taught and science is expensive. So, with far fewer students in high school and simple technology -- blackboards, newsprint (foolscap) paper, pencils -- educating kids was less expensive.

0 Replies

Okie wrote: 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.

But, I would like to point out that Okie ignored my request to explain to me what he thinks a conservative is and why he is at odds with so many conservatives who want a national curriculum -- which demands a national educational bureaucracy.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

plainoldme said...

Quote:
I have written many, many times that I think morality is bunk. Morality is the acceptance of handed down set of precepts that remain untested by philosophy and personal experience. Once a person lives and experiences and thinks then they may take the inherited morality and use it to develop an ethical system. Only ethical systems matter.

My morality tells me not to have sex with a 12 year old girl,my morality tells me that murder is wrong,my morality tells me not to rob a bank.

So,using your logic,if I have sex with a 12 year old girl,and decide I like it,then its ok,since I have tested my morals?

I ignored this post for a time. I will answer it now, in an attempt to underail this thread.

1.) This argument is poorly constructed. A logical come back is that the author is implying that ii may be alright to have sex with 11 or 13 year old girls, but not 12.

2.) It is also specious.
a.) In states where older men may marry young girls or among religious groups that not only permit but encourage such unions (a radical sect of Mormons in, I believe, Arizona comes to mind), both the law -- albeit not necessarily a 'moral' force -- and religion, in a sense, permit and promote rape. Rape occurs within marriage as well as among strangers.
b.) One need not commit rape to know it is wrong.
c.) There is no commandment against rape -- only against coveting thy neighbor's wife. Furthermore, an argument could be constructed from the Bible that as long as the rape victim became pregnant, rape is permissable.

3.) Please try to be as respectful toward me as I have been toward you.

0 Replies

Finally, this Sunday, I had a conversation with a woman (who is about 63 or 63) who said she remembered when she was in school and learned about the Scopes Trial that her classmates laughed at how stupid people were in the 1920s. She said for years, she thought that form of fundamentalism was a dead issue. She was surprised when it surfaced again in a renewed anti-Darwin movement.

I agreed completely with her.

Using Mysterman's argument and the woman's statement, I think we have a very good illustration as to why dialogue is close to impossible.

0 Replies

My son told me that he stopped to buy a coffee this pm and a television in the doughnut shop was tuned to the bush press conference.

Bush admitted that global warming is real.

Things have to be worse than most of us think: I bet we have 20 minutes to live.

0 Replies

Democracies and Mutual Respect

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know