No on 103

[jhood001]

The reason (I think) that the cost of secondary education has increased so dramatically is for a couple reasons

1. the government now guarantees student loans. There is no risk involved for the college/university. They'll get their money so they can charge whatever they want

and

2. basic supply and demand. Years ago, only the brightest or those with certain career plans went to college. Now I would guess that number is (I would guess) closer to 80% of those that graduate high school. The "better schools" can charge more because of the exclusivity of going there.


so you get a combination of "Little Johnny" needing to go to a better school and there being no risk in the school getting paid...they can charge whatever they want

I think there is something to be said for #2.

However, won't privatizing primary school have the exact same effect? Nevermind our new 80%. We'll then have 100% if primary school is still mandatory. Which I hope it will be - Unless we want the majority of our children to be day laborers.

I'm not sure #1 holds water. I fail to see how a guarantee on a loan has anything to do with the ability to raise the price of the service. Because it is guaranteed? Someone still has to take on that loan and what they will or will not agree to pay is on them regardless of whether it is backed or not.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I disagree on this solely on the issue of public money being given to private institutions. You want your kid to go to Catholic school? No problem. You will need to pay for it though, out of your own money. Same for any secular school. You want your kid to go to Cherry Creek High School? No problem. You figure out how to get him/her there and they are golden. Open enrollment.

Your argument parallels Obama's thinking in that it assumes "public" money belongs to the State. So-called "public" money is taxpayer money, citizens' money, so it IS his money and already pays for school. He pays taxes that are intended to be used to educate his kid. The money apportioned by the state should follow the kid -- that's all the voucher system is doing really (and in actuality, only a PORTION of the money apportioned to educate that kid follows him/her as a portion is kept back to pay for the bloated state/county infrastructure).

I grabbed a quick graph, but I can't attest to its accuracy or validity.

Your graph is consistent with the figure William McGurn cited in his editorial in the WSJ.

The state(s) got involved in education decades upon decades ago to bring all schools up to minimum standards and maintain or improve those standards. Today, public education does nothing of the sort and one could argue the political forces of Public Education are a pedagogy dragging students down to sub-minimum standards.

[OneGuy67]

Would the parents of parochial school students get a break on their property taxes, or would they pay for their kid's education along with supporting a public school system? Would the county have to transfer a portion of their tax revenue to a school where a student transfers, or would the "magnet school" have to bear the cost out of their existing budget?

Interesting question! It is one I thought about. At first blush, I would agree that the property tax mil levy the HOMEOWNER would normally pay to the school district should go to whatever school the kid ultimately went to, be it private or public. However, the funds collected through other taxing sources that end up in the general fund that is divvied up to the schools each year for each student should not follow the kid to a private school. Of course, this penalizes families who don't own property.

I think your second question deals with a recent story in which internet schools would get the initial check for the student, only to have the student drop out and begin attending the brick and mortar school down the street, without that school getting the public funding and I agree that the prorated funding should be rebated back to the state and reallocated to where the student went. Same for any drop out student. The funding for that student should be given back to the state. Right now, there is a certain date in the school calendar that they finalize their attendance and receive a per pupil chunk of money from the state. After that date, the school could care less if the student attends anymore as they got their money. Maybe have the state pay monthly instead of annually?

I don't know. I certainly don't have the answers.

[sniper7]

I voted no on this, but truthfully, was torn. Working in government right now, I know how tight our budget is, how much additional work I've been given, how much prioritizing has been done, how much our pay cuts and furloughs have been and cost me, how much health insurance has gone up. My take home paycheck is substantially less now than it was 5 years ago and consumer prices have gone up dramatically in that time.

I voted my pocketbook, knowing I can't afford to pay more because I don't have the money.

It is too easy to say cut the fat, but from the outside looking in, I don't know what the fat is that needs to be cut. Too much generalization. I know there are some teachers here on the forum and I would really like to hear from them about their schools, their budgets, their administration and their ideas about where their structure could be manipulated to meet the current budget.

My wifes school has cut pretty much everything they can at this point. 1 principal and 1 vice principal. they have 580 kids.
there are I think 25 teachers now. 7 periods a day. pretty much all teachers have only 1 plan period where they don't have kids).
2 gym teachers, a music teacher are included in that.

they have a counselor on staff, I think 3 front desk/secretary staff, might be 4.

I don't know what their budget is at, but I know they are tight, the class sizes for my wife range from 35-40 or so. I think she sees 180 kids a day, maybe a bit more.

Then there are Para-professionals. while they do serve a purpose, sometimes there is 1 adult following 1 kid around a day. that is what KILLS a budget. I would say there are 3-5 paras at the school. their pay sucks, but add in health benefits etc and it is adding up big time. so say 4 of them, the cost is probably 200K. that should be cut in half at least if not more. put all the kids who can't function on their own in a normal classroom and put them into a special room where 1-2 teachers can help them learn at their own pace.
Those kids not only slow the class down, they also disrupt the class a lot slowing it down even further. then if a para doesn't show, or if they have to leave half way through class...which a lot of times is scheduled, it leaves the teacher with the special needs student as well as the regular students.

It is the fault of the system. the system needs to be changed.

The kids who ride busses are paying for those bus rides now (expect for those who get it free...usually along with lunch and sports participation etc.)

Gym needs to stick around. a gym can hold 80-100 kids and participation can be achieved by all with 2 gym teachers, but the classroom sizes need to be reeled in to more manageable levels for students to learn better and get more one on one help with their teacher.

The good teachers (for the most part) are being retained, the bad ones are getting weeded out to a degree (tenure changes last year now allow administrators the ability to get rid of bad teachers even if they have tenure). The teachers are going to give it everything they can, if they don't, the principal sees it. At her school, her principal is awesome and really does a good job keeping on top of everything. He really does earn his paycheck.

[sniper7]

Been on my soapbox before on this issue. Y'all know where I stand. I love teaching and I love music. Better yet, I love being able to teach music!! Your kids will get an education with me "whether or not you want to" because that is my job. I can do my job with a paycheck of $1mil or a paycheck of $18K a year. Granted, the $1mil would be nice and I would be able to afford new instruments and music for everyone in the school, but... it's not needed.

As a teacher in a low socio-econimic school that has minimum funding (even by CO standards), I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is the quality of teachers and not how much money you throw at a problem...

In music, we have to learn critical thinking skills, reasoning, logical sequenceing, teamwork, discipline, math, science, reading (English and Foreign languages), et al... but for some reason, music is the first thing to be cut. If you get a chance, look up Chris Potter and how she turned her music program around with private marketing, etc. Amazing.


Thanks for listening.

and this is what you are going to see out of 95% of the teachers out there. It isn't the teachers, they are still doing their best, even with crappy class sizes, even with pay freezes, sub-par equipment, and even covering supplies out of their own pockets (without re-reimbursement).

[OneGuy67]

Your argument parallels Obama's thinking in that it assumes "public" money belongs to the State. So-called "public" money is taxpayer money, citizens' money, so it IS his money and already pays for school. He pays taxes that are intended to be used to educate his kid. The money apportioned by the state should follow the kid -- that's all the voucher system is doing really (and in actuality, only a PORTION of the money apportioned to educate that kid follows him/her as a portion is kept back to pay for the bloated state/county infrastructure).

While I wouldn't equate my argument to Obama, I understand what you are saying, but just don't agree with it. It is tax-payer money, but to each individual, that amount is small. It is the combined amount that creates the pot to which money is divvied up in. The money apportioned by the state for each kid isn't all paid for by that kid's parents. The amount they contribute is pretty small overall. You want the rest of the people's money to pay for that kid, which is my issue.

[OneGuy67]

Sniper, my sincerest appreciation goes out to your wife and her coworkers. It is a job I could never do, nor would I want to. It's an old saying, but teachers should be paid what the professional sports people are paid and vise versa.

[Aloha_Shooter]

covering supplies out of their own pockets (without re-reimbursement).

This is one thing that chaps my arse. I would love to see a private non-profit devoted to finding these cases and fixing them. I KNOW some families or districts can't afford proper supplies -- I'd be happy to donate supplies or funds to get the students going in the right direction, I just don't want my pocket picked by Denver or the county to do what THEY think they want to do (which is probably funding more "education" in "diversity" and "sensitivity").

[stove]

Dont see how funneling more money to the state will fix anything. My family, including an out of work Teacher all voted no. When ever the state blows the budget they cut Teachers, Fire fighters, Police ... and wail to high heavens for more money. Oddly, local school still have an abundance of Administrators and I haven't heard anything about cutting their positions or salaries. Only seem to make cuts in the classroom.
Raising taxes will definitely hurt the economy and I doubt it would do a bit of good for the schools. Call me cynical but not thanks!

[Elhuero]

Same and same

ditto here.

it's going to be a painful detox, but we need to force govt. off its drug of choice. (our money)

joet is right about tuition. if the govt was a private company, it would be broken up by the government. they have completely monopolized school loans, and the cost is a killer.

and worse than that, these "college educated" people are stupid enough to believe that "rich people" are at fault.

the govt spending jungle needs some slashing and burning.