Education Debacle of the Decade

[kalm]

Got this off CAAzone's political board-
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/06/the-e ... cade/print:

You were right about something. The government, who is responsible for PUBLIC education, giving some folks $7,500 to attend a PRIVATE school, is indeed one of, if not the, education debacle of the decade.

It deserved to get killed.

Thank you.

[∞∞∞]

By that logic, we should immediately stop giving government contracts to private companies...

[Baldy]

Got this off CAAzone's political board-
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/06/the-e ... cade/print:

You were right about something. The government, who is responsible for PUBLIC education, giving some folks $7,500 to attend a PRIVATE school, is indeed one of, if not the, education debacle of the decade.

It deserved to get killed.

Why?

The citizens pay the taxes anyway, its just that the government is actually giving the people the choice to send their children to the school they want.

[YoUDeeMan]

By that logic, we should immediately stop giving government contracts to private companies...

Goodness, that was a big leap.

[YoUDeeMan]

You were right about something. The government, who is responsible for PUBLIC education, giving some folks $7,500 to attend a PRIVATE school, is indeed one of, if not the, education debacle of the decade.

It deserved to get killed.

Why?

The citizens pay the taxes anyway, its just that the government is actually giving the people the choice to send their children to the school they want.

No, the government is paying people to NOT go to the public schools, the very same schools that the government is taxing people (in this case, other people, since the parents of the students are most likely too poor to be paying taxes anyway) to support.

[Baldy]

Why?

The citizens pay the taxes anyway, its just that the government is actually giving the people the choice to send their children to the school they want.

No, the government is paying people to NOT go to the public schools, the very same schools that the government is taxing people (in this case, other people, since the parents of the students are most likely too poor to be paying taxes anyway) to support.

No, the government was saving $17,106 per pupil by not sending those kids to the abysmal DC public school system. Couple that with the FACT that those kids were getting a much better education made this a win/win situation for both.

[YoUDeeMan]

No, the government is paying people to NOT go to the public schools, the very same schools that the government is taxing people (in this case, other people, since the parents of the students are most likely too poor to be paying taxes anyway) to support.

No, the government was saving $17,106 per pupil by not sending those kids to the abysmal DC public school system. Couple that with the FACT that those kids were getting a much better education made this a win/win situation for both.

You have got to be kidding me. By what accounting rule does DC save $17,106 by sending these kids to a private school?

What a farce...and you should be ashamed for believing that piece of drivel. By that accounting measure, the government should just close the DC public school system and offer every child $7,500 to go to private school.
Problem solved.

Back to reality: apparently, in your rush to feel good, you forgot to read the entire article...or you simply decided to ignore some of the hard numbers.

From the article:

"First, OSP takes no money away from public schools. By stark contrast, it pumps millions of dollars into the public schools. OSP is funded with new federal money as part of a plan that allocates matching funding directly to the public schools. So for every dollar that goes to OSP, the public schools get an extra dollar.

Plus, the public schools get to keep all the money saved through OSP. This means that in addition to the matching funds, the public schools receive over $10,000 for every child in OSP—children that the public schools do not have to educate."



The FACT is that the federal government (that means taxpayers) plows extra money into the system. The fed provides $7,500 to the student for private school education, AND THEN MATCHES THAT AMOUNT AND GIVES IT TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. That is now $15,000 of EXTRA money to educate each student.

And, it doesn't save the school system or taxpayers one cent...because the school gets to KEEP the +$10,000 it would have spent for each child's education (while getting, unbelievably, the exta matching $7,500 for the student that won't attend their schools).

That means...and here is some simple and more accurate math for you...it is now costing taxpayers over $25,000 ($7,500 for private school tuition + the fed matching $7,500 + the original $10,000 for each public school student) to educate each child in the program.

THAT is easily one of the biggest education debacles of the decade.

Now, if you want, we can argue that the biggest education debacle of previous decades is the one that allows people to claim that spending an EXTRA $15,000 to educate a select group of people is some sort of "savings".

[GannonFan]

I too find the claims that charter schools actually save money to be pretty dubious - I don't think they are.

However, that doesn't mean that there aren't times when charter schools make sense. In this case, in the DC system (and I would wager in a lot of inner city areas) charter schools certainly do make some sense and probably should be protected and developed. Clearly in these areas public schools (or the environments that students who go to public schools live in) have failed and students are very hard pressed to succeed from these areas. And in the DC case, the charter school system did work to allow some kids to change that and actually succeed and get out of the inner cities.

Surely at some point we need to be able to come up with a total solution to the problems of educational shortcomings, but I don't see why we have to let a generation or two more of kids in tough inner city schools languish and suffer just because we can't quickly come up with a solution and because some people just stoically hold on to the notion that all charter schools are bad and take away from the public school solution. Charter schools in lots of places are redundant and do take away from what should be public school solutions. But at the same time in several places, namely the inner cities, blocking charter schools just on principle is pretty much condemning many kids to poor education and a life long struggle to overcome that.

[Baldy]

You have got to be kidding me. By what accounting rule does DC save $17,106 by sending these kids to a private school?

What a farce...and you should be ashamed for believing that piece of drivel. By that accounting measure, the government should just close the DC public school system and offer every child $7,500 to go to private school.
Problem solved.

Back to reality: apparently, in your rush to feel good, you forgot to read the entire article...or you simply decided to ignore some of the hard numbers.

From the article:

"First, OSP takes no money away from public schools. By stark contrast, it pumps millions of dollars into the public schools. OSP is funded with new federal money as part of a plan that allocates matching funding directly to the public schools. So for every dollar that goes to OSP, the public schools get an extra dollar.

Plus, the public schools get to keep all the money saved through OSP. This means that in addition to the matching funds, the public schools receive over $10,000 for every child in OSP—children that the public schools do not have to educate."



The FACT is that the federal government (that means taxpayers) plows extra money into the system. The fed provides $7,500 to the student for private school education, AND THEN MATCHES THAT AMOUNT AND GIVES IT TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. That is now $15,000 of EXTRA money to educate each student.

And, it doesn't save the school system or taxpayers one cent...because the school gets to KEEP the +$10,000 it would have spent for each child's education (while getting, unbelievably, the exta matching $7,500 for the student that won't attend their schools).

That means...and here is some simple and more accurate math for you...it is now costing taxpayers over $25,000 ($7,500 for private school tuition + the fed matching $7,500 + the original $10,000 for each public school student) to educate each child in the program.

THAT is easily one of the biggest education debacles of the decade.

Now, if you want, we can argue that the biggest education debacle of previous decades is the one that allows people to claim that spending an EXTRA $15,000 to educate a select group of people is some sort of "savings".

Love your fuzzy math.

Fine, count the extra $7,500 that OSP puts into the DC government school system, that only takes it up to $15,000 per child (one hell of a bargain considering the actual costs per child for the DC government school system is over $28,000 per pupil). To claim that it now costs $25,000 per child is a sign of desperation on your part. Attempting to count the money that won't be spent on the child because he or she is in the OPS program is disingenuous. That money is no different than the thousands of DC residents who pay taxes for the government schools, but choose to and pay out of their own pockets to send their children to a private one.

Speaking of ignoring some of the "hard numbers" in the article. I like how you conveniently left out that it costs the taxpayer $112,000 for each HS dropout, and how it saves the taxpayer $260,000 per HS graduate.

Keep trying.

[kalm]

[mebison]

Dumb question perhaps, but what the heck are charter schools? I've heard the term tossed around for years, but never figured out exactly what it is.

Are all charter private?

I'm pretty sure not all private schools are charter?

These are different than the so-called 'magnet' schools, right?


You don't figure these things out when you grow up in an area where there are 30-40 miles between high schools and they can still barely justify keeping the doors open.

[YoUDeeMan]

Love your fuzzy math.

Fine, count the extra $7,500 that OSP puts into the DC government school system, that only takes it up to $15,000 per child (one hell of a bargain considering the actual costs per child for the DC government school system is over $28,000 per pupil). To claim that it now costs $25,000 per child is a sign of desperation on your part. Attempting to count the money that won't be spent on the child because he or she is in the OPS program is disingenuous. That money is no different than the thousands of DC residents who pay taxes for the government schools, but choose to and pay out of their own pockets to send their children to a private one.

Speaking of ignoring some of the "hard numbers" in the article. I like how you conveniently left out that it costs the taxpayer $112,000 for each HS dropout, and how it saves the taxpayer $260,000 per HS graduate.

Keep trying.

I Googled DC student costs and the average of several sources came to a little over $12,000 per student. the article itself says the cost is about $17.5K If DC is spending $28K to educate each child, that is an even bigger travesty than my numbers (especially when you add $15K to it).

Unless DC is operating in its own universe, their public school systems do not get funding for students who opt to go to private schools. Funding is based upon the number of children enrolled in the public schools...not the private schools. However, in this OSP program - and it is why the author mentions it, the schools do continue to get credit and funding for the students who are opting to the private schools. So yes, there is a difference to the taxpayers because, in hte case of the OSP students, they are still funding a student who is no longer on their rosters.

As far as the cost of graduates versus non graduates, that is another set of fluff numbers you've put up with little to no hard data. Those numbers were generated on a national level and hold no specific value to the particular students in this situation. Those numbers were also conveniently created and extrapolated in a university professor's vacuum...as if in reality an increased number of high school graduates would automatically equate to an increased number of available jobs at similar income levels.

Oh, by the way, have you read any studies about the impact on public schools when you take the motivated parents and their students out of the equation? Can't wait for Rouse to write a thesis on that one.

Face it, the program was just another way to take millions of dollars to benefit a tiny segment of our population at the exclusion of everyone else. It was rightfully cut.

[YoUDeeMan]

Dumb question perhaps, but what the heck are charter schools? I've heard the term tossed around for years, but never figured out exactly what it is.

Are all charter private?

I'm pretty sure not all private schools are charter?

These are different than the so-called 'magnet' schools, right?


You don't figure these things out when you grow up in an area where there are 30-40 miles between high schools and they can still barely justify keeping the doors open.

Charter schools are simply a way for the government to spend more of your money while ignoring the big elephant in the room. Basically, they are saying our education system is failing, we absolutely dn't have the will to fix it, and we certainly won't hold anyone accountable, so we are going to give some special people publicly funded private schools of their own.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

[kalm]

Dumb question perhaps, but what the heck are charter schools? I've heard the term tossed around for years, but never figured out exactly what it is.

Are all charter private?

I'm pretty sure not all private schools are charter?

These are different than the so-called 'magnet' schools, right?


You don't figure these things out when you grow up in an area where there are 30-40 miles between high schools and they can still barely justify keeping the doors open.

Charter schools are simply a way for the government to spend more of your money while ignoring the big elephant in the room. Basically, they are saying our education system is failing, we absolutely dn't have the will to fix it, and we certainly won't hold anyone accountable, so we are going to give some special people publicly funded private schools of their own.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Exactly.

But why stop at the students? Let's bus all of the poor people out of the poor neighborhoods and then they will all succeed.

[YoUDeeMan]

Exactly.

But why stop at the students? Let's bus all of the poor people out of the poor neighborhoods and then they will all succeed.

Because it is has to be entirely about the physical environment. Hey, I need a new big screen TV to feel worthy.

Good one!

[mebison]

Dumb question perhaps, but what the heck are charter schools? I've heard the term tossed around for years, but never figured out exactly what it is.

Are all charter private?

I'm pretty sure not all private schools are charter?

These are different than the so-called 'magnet' schools, right?


You don't figure these things out when you grow up in an area where there are 30-40 miles between high schools and they can still barely justify keeping the doors open.

Charter schools are simply a way for the government to spend more of your money while ignoring the big elephant in the room. Basically, they are saying our education system is failing, we absolutely dn't have the will to fix it, and we certainly won't hold anyone accountable, so we are going to give some special people publicly funded private schools of their own.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

So its a privately-run school that receives funding from the federal govt?

[YoUDeeMan]

Exactly.

But why stop at the students? Let's bus all of the poor people out of the poor neighborhoods and then they will all succeed.

Holy snot, I just remembered something. Some clown that ran the projects in Newark wanted to shut down the federally assisted housing units and, instead, purchase regular houses and integrate the people into the neighborhoods around the town.



Yeah, that went over well. Not even the uber liberal minded college professors wanted a piece of that.

Housing costs at the time were at an all time high and this asshat wanted to spend federal money to buy houses in good neighborhoods to allow the welfare folks to move in. Seems he thought that living in the projects was a little embarrassing for some folks, and a little dangerous because of the drugs, so it would be better to house them in regular neighborhoods...you know, the ones where other people actually had to WORK to purchase their homes.

The plan didn't go through, but look for similar plans coming to your neighborhood any day now.

[kalm]

Exactly.

But why stop at the students? Let's bus all of the poor people out of the poor neighborhoods and then they will all succeed.

Holy snot, I just remembered something. Some clown that ran the projects in Newark wanted to shut down the federally assisted housing units and, instead, purchase regular houses and integrate the people into the neighborhoods around the town.



Yeah, that went over well. Not even the uber liberal minded college professors wanted a piece of that.

Housing costs at the time were at an all time high and this asshat wanted to spend federal money to buy houses in good neighborhoods to allow the welfare folks to move in. Seems he thought that living in the projects was a little embarrassing for some folks, and a little dangerous because of the drugs, so it would be better to house them in regular neighborhoods...you know, the ones where other people actually had to WORK to purchase their homes.

The plan didn't go through, but look for similar plans coming to your neighborhood any day now.

I think England tried to do something similar in the 50's and the 60's in a failed attempt to do away with the class system. But instead of relocating the poor to already existing neighborhoods, they built "projects" in open space. It utterly failed and the Kinks wrote several very entertaining and cutting songs about it.

BTW, I think you're missing my point. Moving poor kids around isn't going to end the problem of why they have a tendency to fail.

[YoUDeeMan]

BTW, I think you're missing my point. Moving poor kids around isn't going to end the problem of why they have a tendency to fail.

Didn't miss your point...I didn't think you were advocating moving kids around.

Your quote just got me thinking about that wonderful fellow who thought the "physical environment" was what was preventing the project people from succeeding.

[mebison]

I'm actually surprised you guys are joking about busing people to different neighborhoods...don't they do that where you are? Our district is redrawing boundary lines for each high school (due to overcrowding) and one of the criterea for the new division is trying to 'equalize the socio-economic levels' of each of the high schools.

[YoUDeeMan]

I'm actually surprised you guys are joking about busing people to different neighborhoods...don't they do that where you are? Our district is redrawing boundary lines for each high school (due to overcrowding) and one of the criterea for the new division is trying to 'equalize the socio-economic levels' of each of the high schools.

Busing...THAT was the WORST education debacle of the past few decades. Sorry to hear it is starting to happen up where you are.

We are dismantling busing here in Delaware, but it has taken decades and many lawsuits to get to this point. It also took the failure of our public school system.

What a complete waste of time and effort. Kids from all over New Castle County were put on buses each day to ride over an hour (each way) so they could get shipped into Wilmington to share the misery of the schools where communities, on the whole, didn't care about education. No wonder private schools make up over 25% of our education here in Delaware. Busing drove out a large part of the kids and parents who actually cared about getting a quality education. Sure, there were still people who cared and couldn't afford private schools, but the school system on the whole lost a lot of good parents and students.

Congrats, in an effort to help out a small group of people, everyone got the public schools to sink to a new low level.

[Baldy]

Love your fuzzy math.

Fine, count the extra $7,500 that OSP puts into the DC government school system, that only takes it up to $15,000 per child (one hell of a bargain considering the actual costs per child for the DC government school system is over $28,000 per pupil). To claim that it now costs $25,000 per child is a sign of desperation on your part. Attempting to count the money that won't be spent on the child because he or she is in the OPS program is disingenuous. That money is no different than the thousands of DC residents who pay taxes for the government schools, but choose to and pay out of their own pockets to send their children to a private one.

Speaking of ignoring some of the "hard numbers" in the article. I like how you conveniently left out that it costs the taxpayer $112,000 for each HS dropout, and how it saves the taxpayer $260,000 per HS graduate.

Keep trying.

I Googled DC student costs and the average of several sources came to a little over $12,000 per student. the article itself says the cost is about $17.5K If DC is spending $28K to educate each child, that is an even bigger travesty than my numbers (especially when you add $15K to it).

Unless DC is operating in its own universe, their public school systems do not get funding for students who opt to go to private schools. Funding is based upon the number of children enrolled in the public schools...not the private schools. However, in this OSP program - and it is why the author mentions it, the schools do continue to get credit and funding for the students who are opting to the private schools. So yes, there is a difference to the taxpayers because, in hte case of the OSP students, they are still funding a student who is no longer on their rosters.

As far as the cost of graduates versus non graduates, that is another set of fluff numbers you've put up with little to no hard data. Those numbers were generated on a national level and hold no specific value to the particular students in this situation. Those numbers were also conveniently created and extrapolated in a university professor's vacuum...as if in reality an increased number of high school graduates would automatically equate to an increased number of available jobs at similar income levels.

Oh, by the way, have you read any studies about the impact on public schools when you take the motivated parents and their students out of the equation? Can't wait for Rouse to write a thesis on that one.

Face it, the program was just another way to take millions of dollars to benefit a tiny segment of our population at the exclusion of everyone else. It was rightfully cut.

Seems your googling skills need a little bit of a refresher course. The Libertarian Cato Institute has an excellent explanation of actual per pupil costs for several school systems across the nation (including Washington DC).

Not really sure how DC funds it's school system. They aren't very clear about where the money comes from, but since DC is a special case because it isn't a state, they aren't able to rely on "the state" for some of it's funding or a "county" to rely on property taxes to fund it's schools like almost all cities, counties, and states do. Since they rely on the feds to finance their municipal court system, police, etc, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that the feds finance a large portion of their schools system, and if that is the case the entire argument is moot.

Afterall, this was a PILOT program, and it was immensely successful. There are countless cities and even some states who are now running programs mirrored on the DC OSP program and applying it in their locations. To no surprise most if not all are finding the same success.

[YoUDeeMan]

[Seems your googling skills need a little bit of a refresher course. The Libertarian Cato Institute has an excellent explanation of actual per pupil costs for several school systems across the nation (including Washington DC).

Not really sure how DC funds it's school system. They aren't very clear about where the money comes from, but since DC is a special case because it isn't a state, they aren't able to rely on "the state" for some of it's funding or a "county" to rely on property taxes to fund it's schools like almost all cities, counties, and states do. Since they rely on the feds to finance their municipal court system, police, etc, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to assume that the feds finance a large portion of their schools system, and if that is the case the entire argument is moot.

Afterall, this was a PILOT program, and it was immensely successful. There are countless cities and even some states who are now running programs mirrored on the DC OSP program and applying it in their locations. To no surprise most if not all are finding the same success.

Hey, if it is so successful, then apply it everywhere. Oh, that's right, the cost won't let it be applied everywhere.

Instead, it is providing a private school education for a very select group of people. That is pure bullshit.

Again, the program was killed...as it should have been. Here's hoping it gets killed in the other locations as well.

[Baldy]

Hey, if it is so successful, then apply it everywhere. Oh, that's right, the cost won't let it be applied everywhere.

Instead, it is providing a private school education for a very select group of people. That is pure bullshit.

Again, the program was killed...as it should have been. Here's hoping it gets killed in the other locations as well.

The program was killed because of politics, not because it wasn't successful. Fortunately, states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, and Rhode Island all have programs mirrored after the DC model and have been VERY successful. Thankfully students stuck in failing schools in those states will get a chance to go to successful schools of their choosing, get a great education, and make successful leaders.