quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
You are comparing the Federal spending level of a program that is primarily funded at a State/Local level to the Federal spending of a Constitutionally authorized Federal program. And you are shocked that there is a massive difference?
Ohio Education Budget
For 2014, State of Ohio funding for education is $10.5B, increasing to $10.8B for 2015 (<25% of that funding is coming the Federal Government). Additionally, 58.4% of my real estate taxes goes to my local school district. Schools are funded primarily at the local and State levels.

And my point, is that it should be funded at the federal level, not pushed off at the state. Why, because there is a crap-ton more cash being flung around at stupid stuff instead of education, infrastructure, real basic nuts and bolts foundation things. Most every other country in the world is slowly getting their crap together, cleaning up their people, getting them educated, and entering the world stage. 10 years ago, we would have laughed our asses off if someone had said the Koreans could not only build a nuclear bomb, but test detonate it. But here they are, and the joke is on us. No longer the country that made the Daewoo, they can now join the ranks of superpowers. And yet we still can't agree on trivial matters like health care or education. Face it, while we sit back and try to veto Obama's healtcare bill for the 40th time, yet another country will rise from the ashes of our joke-pile and surpass us

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280
Take it from my wife the former school counselor turned private counselor. The money for ed doesn't really go to the class room. What DS has wrong is that it really isn't being consumed by counselors and lunch ladies. Counselors are necessary to deal with behavior issues in school. Lunch is often only completely free to the poor kids and the rest pay (depending on the district). While those may be costly they aren't that costly. The really bugger is the blob aka the school administration.
Schools are so bloated and top heavy it is nuts. These directors have staffs and earn 6 figure salaries while the teacher shop at thrift stores. In my wife's middle school of 1200kids she was one of 2 counselors for all those kids. Yet there were a principle, two vice principles, a dean, a secretary for each, plus 6 other members of office staff. That's 14 pieces of administrative dead weight. Pretty shitty considering there were only 40 teachers.
I went to a private high school of 900 students. 42 teachers and only 7 pieces of administrative staff........
I would be happy to give teachers a raise, many deserve it but when you give the schools more money they often blow it on admin. The reason she got out in 2010 was because with all the budget cut backs they were looking to cut staff. She volunteered to save the job of a friend as she had just gotten her private practice license anyways. The school cut her job and 3 teacher as well as made 4 teachers go part time.....And they fired none of the office staff........... Still multiple vice principles with their own secretaries etc. Less teachers, poorer and more pissed off teachers, that is no way run a school.
That of course includes non of the district overhead etc

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

Take it from my wife the former school counselor turned private counselor. The money for ed doesn't really go to the class room. What DS has wrong is that it really isn't being consumed by counselors and lunch ladies. Counselors are necessary to deal with behavior issues in school. Lunch is often only completely free to the poor kids and the rest pay (depending on the district). While those may be costly they aren't that costly. The really bugger is the blob aka the school administration.

Schools are so bloated and top heavy it is nuts. These directors have staffs and earn 6 figure salaries while the teacher shop at thrift stores. In my wife's middle school of 1200kids she was one of 2 counselors for all those kids. Yet there were a principle, two vice principles, a dean, a secretary for each, plus 6 other members of office staff. That's 14 pieces of administrative dead weight. Pretty shitty considering there were only 40 teachers.

I went to a private high school of 900 students. 42 teachers and only 7 pieces of administrative staff........

I would be happy to give teachers a raise, many deserve it but when you give the schools more money they often blow it on admin. The reason she got out in 2010 was because with all the budget cut backs they were looking to cut staff. She volunteered to save the job of a friend as she had just gotten her private practice license anyways. The school cut her job and 3 teacher as well as made 4 teachers go part time.....And they fired none of the office staff........... Still multiple vice principles with their own secretaries etc. Less teachers, poorer and more pissed off teachers, that is no way run a school.

That of course includes non of the district overhead etc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Don't forget that at private schools (I taught at one for a year before I went to Dade County) the administrators typically all teach a class or 3 as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

So, your basis for determining who should pay for public schools is whoever has the deepest pockets? That does more to insulate the provider from the recipient than anything. Schools won't have to keep the consumers happy. All they'll have to do is keep the Fed's happy.

The problem with our school system isn't that we aren't spending enough money for the education of our kids. We are spending more than enough for that. The real problem with schooling is that every kid doesn't have the type of home environment that is conducive to educational achievement. The biggest issue, IMO, in school funding is the cost of the shit outside of education that the schools provide. The meals, the behavioral issues, etc. that should be handled at home. All that stuff has been foisted onto the shoulders of public schools, and that shit is costly. If parents actually performed the responsibilities of parents and more kids have more supportive home environments (in support of educational achievement), we'd have much better rankings without having to spend another dime (over what we're spending now).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

Wait...free post-secondary education? I won't even go in to the erroneous notion that "free" anything exists, when provided by the government. That's patently obvious.

But, rather, I will ask this. With rapid degree inflation already a problem, why do you think people have a right to "free" college educations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

The philosophical problem I have with the "right to education" is the same problem I have to the "right to medical care" argument. It is entirely focused on the student/patient/consumer. But, what of the provider? When one argues that there is a right to a service (which is what is being argued here), they are arguing that people have the right to be the recipient of the time, energy, expertise, and skills of trained professionals (which is what teachers and doctors are). So, if one DOES have a right to those skills, does that mean that the holder of those skills has no right to set their own terms by which they will provide service? Do doctors no longer have the right to set their own prices? Do teachers no longer have the right to determine how, and where, they wish to teach?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

Wait...free post-secondary education? I won't even go in to the erroneous notion that "free" anything exists, when provided by the government. That's patently obvious.

But, rather, I will ask this. With rapid degree inflation already a problem, why do you think people have a right to "free" college educations?

First off, it won't be free, our tax dollars will be going to pay for it. Your money, my money, his money, her money. We as US citizens have the right to actually choose where that money gets paid you know. The government is a of the people, for the people, by the people. And yes, I am saying we should have FREE education in this country. Free education, free food, free healthcare. For god's sake, lets bring some dignity to the people of our country, and stop thinking everything has to be earned. You know there was a time when you walked down the street and saw a homeless person, you gave him a coat, or a sandwich... Not said "get a job, loser". Only when we eliminate the impoverished, the starving, and the uneducated, can we actually call ourselves an advanced nation. Until then we are just a country of the "haves" and the "have-nots". And I will keep saying this until it finally sinks in, you can kill the rapid inflation by frikkin cutting Defense spending of 672.9 BILLION in half, and putting that money to better use

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

The philosophical problem I have with the "right to education" is the same problem I have to the "right to medical care" argument. It is entirely focused on the student/patient/consumer. But, what of the provider? When one argues that there is a right to a service (which is what is being argued here), they are arguing that people have the right to be the recipient of the time, energy, expertise, and skills of trained professionals (which is what teachers and doctors are). So, if one DOES have a right to those skills, does that mean that the holder of those skills has no right to set their own terms by which they will provide service? Do doctors no longer have the right to set their own prices? Do teachers no longer have the right to determine how, and where, they wish to teach?

Your attempt to create a straw man sux
No one has suggested that the provider not be paid.
It has been pointed out more than once that there is no shortage of money.
Wanna try again?

quote:

2) The money issue was only an example of the ways in which a "right to education" would impact the providers of those services. As has been pointed out, which you very conveniently glossed over, when one makes an argument that people have the right to a service, it implies that the people who are trained to provide that service have an obligation to provide it. I speak, by the way, as a professional educator. My training, my skills, and my expertise are mine to provide or not provide at my own choosing. I am in the career I am in because I love teaching, and it is what I want to do for the rest of my days on Earth. However, no one has the right to obligate me to teach. A right to a service means an obligation by professionals to provide said service. It isn't about the money, it is about whose rights are being affected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

Wait...free post-secondary education? I won't even go in to the erroneous notion that "free" anything exists, when provided by the government. That's patently obvious.

But, rather, I will ask this. With rapid degree inflation already a problem, why do you think people have a right to "free" college educations?

First off, it won't be free, our tax dollars will be going to pay for it. Your money, my money, his money, her money. We as US citizens have the right to actually choose where that money gets paid you know. The government is a of the people, for the people, by the people. And yes, I am saying we should have FREE education in this country. Free education, free food, free healthcare. For god's sake, lets bring some dignity to the people of our country, and stop thinking everything has to be earned. You know there was a time when you walked down the street and saw a homeless person, you gave him a coat, or a sandwich... Not said "get a job, loser". Only when we eliminate the impoverished, the starving, and the uneducated, can we actually call ourselves an advanced nation. Until then we are just a country of the "haves" and the "have-nots". And I will keep saying this until it finally sinks in, you can kill the rapid inflation by frikkin cutting Defense spending of 672.9 BILLION in half, and putting that money to better use

I have two primary problems with your argument. First, you assume that your stance on "free food, free healthcare, free education" is one that is shared by the majority of people, which it would need to be in order for your "for the people, by the people" argument to hold weight. Second, you make the assumption that cutting defense spending in half will kill inflation. Can you prove that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian
The philosophical problem I have with the "right to education" is the same problem I have to the "right to medical care" argument. It is entirely focused on the student/patient/consumer. But, what of the provider? When one argues that there is a right to a service (which is what is being argued here), they are arguing that people have the right to be the recipient of the time, energy, expertise, and skills of trained professionals (which is what teachers and doctors are). So, if one DOES have a right to those skills, does that mean that the holder of those skills has no right to set their own terms by which they will provide service? Do doctors no longer have the right to set their own prices? Do teachers no longer have the right to determine how, and where, they wish to teach?

Your attempt to create a straw man sux
No one has suggested that the provider not be paid.
It has been pointed out more than once that there is no shortage of money.
Wanna try again?

Two things.
1) You need to learn what a straw man argument is if you think that I presented one.
2) The money issue was only an example of the ways in which a "right to education" would impact the providers of those services. As has been pointed out, which you very conveniently glossed over, when one makes an argument that people have the right to a service, it implies that the people who are trained to provide that service have an obligation to provide it. I speak, by the way, as a professional educator. My training, my skills, and my expertise are mine to provide or not provide at my own choosing. I am in the career I am in because I love teaching, and it is what I want to do for the rest of my days on Earth. However, no one has the right to obligate me to teach. A right to a service means an obligation by professionals to provide said service. It isn't about the money, it is about whose rights are being affected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

The philosophical problem I have with the "right to education" is the same problem I have to the "right to medical care" argument. It is entirely focused on the student/patient/consumer. But, what of the provider? When one argues that there is a right to a service (which is what is being argued here), they are arguing that people have the right to be the recipient of the time, energy, expertise, and skills of trained professionals (which is what teachers and doctors are). So, if one DOES have a right to those skills, does that mean that the holder of those skills has no right to set their own terms by which they will provide service? Do doctors no longer have the right to set their own prices? Do teachers no longer have the right to determine how, and where, they wish to teach?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

The philosophical problem I have with the "right to education" is the same problem I have to the "right to medical care" argument. It is entirely focused on the student/patient/consumer. But, what of the provider? When one argues that there is a right to a service (which is what is being argued here), they are arguing that people have the right to be the recipient of the time, energy, expertise, and skills of trained professionals (which is what teachers and doctors are). So, if one DOES have a right to those skills, does that mean that the holder of those skills has no right to set their own terms by which they will provide service? Do doctors no longer have the right to set their own prices? Do teachers no longer have the right to determine how, and where, they wish to teach?

Your attempt to create a straw man sux
No one has suggested that the provider not be paid.
It has been pointed out more than once that there is no shortage of money.
Wanna try again?

Two things.

1) You need to learn what a straw man argument is if you think that I presented one.

2) The money issue was only an example of the ways in which a "right to education" would impact the providers of those services. As has been pointed out, which you very conveniently glossed over, when one makes an argument that people have the right to a service, it implies that the people who are trained to provide that service have an obligation to provide it. I speak, by the way, as a professional educator. My training, my skills, and my expertise are mine to provide or not provide at my own choosing. I am in the career I am in because I love teaching, and it is what I want to do for the rest of my days on Earth. However, no one has the right to obligate me to teach. A right to a service means an obligation by professionals to provide said service. It isn't about the money, it is about whose rights are being affected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MstSebastian

Wait...free post-secondary education? I won't even go in to the erroneous notion that "free" anything exists, when provided by the government. That's patently obvious.

But, rather, I will ask this. With rapid degree inflation already a problem, why do you think people have a right to "free" college educations?

quote:

My training, my skills, and my expertise are mine to provide or not provide at my own choosing. I am in the career I am in because I love teaching, and it is what I want to do for the rest of my days on Earth. However, no one has the right to obligate me to teach. A right to a service means an obligation by professionals to provide said service. It isn't about the money, it is about whose rights are being affected.