Local Schools - The Grim Reaper

The schools aren't bad now, but you can't cut and cut and cut the budgets without impacting quality.

Government schools are a poor investment and pouring more money into them only cushion teacher benefits and cadillac retirement plans. If you owned stock in a company that was producing a lousy, inferior product that the public was unhappy with, would you buy more stock in that company? I think not. So cutting their budget will not have a negative impact in the classroom; however I have no doubt it most certainly will impact the entitlement attitudes of many an educator.

Definition of insantiy? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...i.e. government education.

Trouble wrote:

The schools aren't bad now, but you can't cut and cut and cut the budgets without impacting quality.

Public schools are a poor investment and pouring more money into them only cushion teacher benefits and cadillac retirement plans. If you owned stock in a company that was producing a lousy, inferior product that the public was unhappy with, would you buy more stock in that company? I think not. So cutting their budget should not have a negative impact in the classroom; however I have no doubt it most certainly will impact the entitlement attitudes of many an educator.

It's a perfectly well-documented fact that well funded school systems have students who score higher and perform better and they also tend to have higher property values as parents will pay a premium for a house in a better school district.

None of that has anything to do with your personal opinion of schools in general, I might add.

IF you are working on the "old net" - the concept I refer to is for folks that need extreme bandwidth and very high speed, secure services - not home net level.

I do agree you get what you pay for - schools included.

AspenValley wrote:

Trouble wrote:

The schools aren't bad now, but you can't cut and cut and cut the budgets without impacting quality.

Public schools are a poor investment and pouring more money into them only cushion teacher benefits and cadillac retirement plans. If you owned stock in a company that was producing a lousy, inferior product that the public was unhappy with, would you buy more stock in that company? I think not. So cutting their budget should not have a negative impact in the classroom; however I have no doubt it most certainly will impact the entitlement attitudes of many an educator.

It's a perfectly well-documented fact that well funded school systems have students who score higher and perform better and they also tend to have higher property values as parents will pay a premium for a house in a better school district.

None of that has anything to do with your personal opinion of schools in general, I might add.

I'm not goiung to argue with you about this because I'm sure you've already looked into it. Can you give us a source that shows that the more money a state spends per student results in a better education or higher test scores? I've been under the impression that many of the states who spend the most on education also have some of the worst results.

I agree with you about the high cost of gas being a factor for you folks up there but I don't think people in your situation get very much thought from our leaders who decide energy policy. Imo, they think you can find alternative ways to get to work (which is what they want), jump on a bus, ride your bike, get on a train....blah blah blah. When the day comes that we start running out of affordable energy due to a lack of foresight, you folks will get hit the hardest and your property values will plummet and many more houses will be vacant. (then maybe I'll move back up there )

Just wondering how private schools historically produce better results on a shoe-string budget?

Private schools get good results because parents willing to pay out of pocket for their children's education are a self-selected group of parents that support and value education. So are parents in districts that vote to maintain good facilities, equipment and teachers. Parents who support education (with school expeditures and at home) are one of the biggest predictors of student success.

That's not to say there aren't districts (especially those in inner cities saddled with many problem students, uninvolved families, and decrepit and expensive to run buildings) that aren't spending a lot more than seem justified by their results. But we're not talking about the inner city, we're talking about suburban and rural school districts. And in those areas, if you cut school spending enough, eventually quality suffers and families start to choose to live in areas with better schools. It may not be as obvious here in our area, but in places like the Chicago suburban areas, where I used to live, prices for the same home in exactly similar suburbs can vary by tens of thousands of dollars based on the quality of the school system. And yes, most of that quality can be predicted by the level of funding.

But they still do it on a shoe-string budget.

Trouble wrote: But they still do it on a shoe-string budget.

Some of them of do a good job on a shoe-string budget.

And some of them do a lousy job.

Private schools are not "hands down, better performing" than public. There are some outright-dreadful private schools. And there are many public school districts that outperform many or even most private schools.

But even if you send your kids to private schools, or have no kids at all, your property values generally are going to be higher in a well performing school district than in a poorly performing one. Can you point out many examples of a school district that is poorly funded yet high performing?

Trouble wrote:

The schools aren't bad now, but you can't cut and cut and cut the budgets without impacting quality.

Government schools are a poor investment and pouring more money into them only cushion teacher benefits and cadillac retirement plans. If you owned stock in a company that was producing a lousy, inferior product that the public was unhappy with, would you buy more stock in that company? I think not. So cutting their budget will not have a negative impact in the classroom; however I have no doubt it most certainly will impact the entitlement attitudes of many an educator.

Definition of insantiy? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results...i.e. government education.

$ 1 billion dollar Jeffco budget to teach 84,000 students and to employ 11,000 employees.

That's $ 11,800 per student per year. To attend prestigious Kent Denver School is just $ 20,000 per year. Wow, if I had a voucher for $ 12K, I could send my kids and make up the $ 9,000 difference.

In comparison, to attend CU is $ 16,000 per year (resident or illegal alien). If I had a voucher for $ 12K, I could just send my 16 year old to CU and pay the $ 5,000 difference.

If based a comparsion of the corporations used Revenue Per Employee (RPE)...as a measurement of productivity....here's something to think about...

Harley Davidson RPE is $ 641,000 per employee
H&R Block RPE is $ 436,000 per employee
Viacom RPE is $ 1,200,000 per employee
Amazon.com $ 960,000 per employee

...and then there is Jeffco schools at $ 90,000 per employee.