No on 103

[Byte Stryke]

I too tire of the pandering to human greed to solve our problems.
We aren't going to fix our schools by simply throwing more money at it.

We require deep political and social changes to initiate those changes in our schools.

we need to rid ourselves of the entitlements, the nanny-state and the daycare mentality before anything will change.

The teacher's wage is NOT the problem... the problem is the fat at the top sucking the school funding dry. School administrators do not need to make as much as a Senator.

It is not the teachers job to raise our kids... Their job is to educate.

Get government out of my disciplinary decisions... if my kid steps out of line, it is my responsibility to knock him back in. My Father did it, His father before him, as well as his before him... worked well so far.


more money will not fix any of this.

[OneGuy67]

when the state (county and city too) can show me that they are effectively using my $6500 a year in property taxes, and my 8.25% on everything I purchase...my .125% road use tax, my 4.63% in state income tax, .....etc, etc, etc, I'll gladly give more to education.

You pay $6,500 in property taxes!! Holy cow!

No, you're probably right. That's why vouchers are probably the best realistic idea out there.

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.

[jackthewall81]

I too tire of the pandering to human greed to solve our problems.
We aren't going to fix our schools by simply throwing more money at it.

We require deep political and social changes to initiate those changes in our schools.

we need to rid ourselves of the entitlements, the nanny-state and the daycare mentality before anything will change.

The teacher's wage is NOT the problem... the problem is the fat at the top sucking the school funding dry. School administrators do not need to make as much as a Senator.

It is not the teachers job to raise our kids... Their job is to educate.

Get government out of my disciplinary decisions... if my kid steps out of line, it is my responsibility to knock him back in. My Father did it, His father before him, as well as his before him... worked well so far.


more money will not fix any of this.

Nothing will fix this.

We are screwed and will need some tremendous social overhauling before we will be able to have children who are not sissys because the government says that physical punishment is bad. And that no child should be left behind bs perpetuates it. The strong survive and the weak die. That is how we need to think as a nation.

The only thing that will change this is when America is on the brink of complete collapse, then peoples rationality and will to survive will remind them that the strong survive and the weak die. No more settling for being okay at something, but everyone will strive to be the best and vote in a government with the same ideals.

[jhood001]

I currently don't have any children, but I probably will at some point and the private vs. public debate will gradually gain more interest for me.

For now, however, my question is this:

Advocates for the privatization of education seem to think that doing so will increase efficiency and as a result, drive down costs. However, we are seeing the exact opposite in the cost of private college education. Would the trend we have seen over the last decade+ in the private college sector not be applicable to primary education? And if not... why not?

And would education still be mandatory up to the age of 17 (or whatever it is now) under a privatized system? And if it was, wouldn't there be even more incentive for private school systems to charge more? Things that you are required to have for one reason or another generally cost alot more than the optional ones.

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

[jhood001]

we need to rid ourselves of the entitlements, the nanny-state and the daycare mentality before anything will change.

The teacher's wage is NOT the problem... the problem is the fat at the top sucking the school funding dry. School administrators do not need to make as much as a Senator.

It is not the teachers job to raise our kids... Their job is to educate.

Get government out of my disciplinary decisions... if my kid steps out of line, it is my responsibility to knock him back in. My Father did it, His father before him, as well as his before him... worked well so far.


more money will not fix any of this.

Yes, yes and yes.

In regards to your 'fat at the top' statement, consider this -
The Superintendent for Adams 12 is a lawyer. Yes, a lawyer. He has zero education in the realm of education (excluding education law). His cost to the district comes at a premium because he is a lawyer and further, his primary focus on affairs within his district is avoiding lawsuits. Arguably, doing so will help save money. The downside is that avoiding lawsuits inevitably leads to the further mamby-pamby-ization of our schools.

For example:

My brother is an educator in grades 1-5. When a student becomes disruptive (in many cases downright violent) within his classroom, he can order a 'time-out'. However, if the student refuses, he can do nothing to enforce it.

He can order the student to the principal's office, but he cannot physically make them go. He can then request the principal to his classroom... who can also not physically force the student to go. Their last resort tactic if the student continues to be disruptive is to.... get this... shut off the lights in the room and remove all of the other students!

What does this teach the disruptive student as well as all of the others within the classroom? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.... and has all of the power.

Bad stuff.

[TFOGGER]

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.

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?

[Mobat555]

The problem isn't the funding, it's the attitude and system.

Spending money on education DOES NOT equal better education.

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...

This in my opinion relates to what I think happened with scientists. They pay ridiculously less then wall-street and tech industry. So our highly intelligent people put two and two together and got educated in something else. Less and less you pay teachers the less quality of teachers you get. Because not everyone is like BigBear who is willing to do it for humanity's sake rather then monetary gain. Lower the pay the less educated and capable people will be filling the positions.

[JoeT]

For now, however, my question is this:

Advocates for the privatization of education seem to think that doing so will increase efficiency and as a result, drive down costs. However, we are seeing the exact opposite in the cost of private college education. Would the trend we have seen over the last decade+ in the private college sector not be applicable to primary education? And if not... why not?

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

[sniper7]

And once again Colorado votes down anything to do that might actually help our schools.

I'm as conservative as anyone here but as a parent in torn on the issue when it comes to school funding. Colorado is always at the bottom of the list when it comes to school funding and I can tell every time I walk into my daughters school.

My wife is a teacher and I voted no on this. too many loopholes for them to spend this money elsewhere. I don't trust the state when they want to give free schooling to illegals. Once that legislation is in place that keeps these kids from getting free and reduced school lunch, getting special teachers to teach them english, and no cost bus rides, then I will vote yes to give more money to school based on my state taxes.
The kids of true citizens of our state should receive the extra help, the extra care and their class sizes should be reduced. Paying another teacher to teach kids english is taking away from those kids whose parents/family/friends are covering the costs of public schooling.

I voted yes for our local mill levy because it will directly affect the schools. It would add I think about $75 a year to my property taxes.

[sniper7]

Don't fall for the lie that more money equals better schools.



If 103 passes it will only kill jobs (which won't help the children of the newly unemployed get a better education) and empower the Unions and Democrat Party (yes, I'm being redundant there)

this graph looks amazingly just like the federal bailout obama said would save us....keep throwing money at it, yet nothing changes.


I do know locally that at my wifes school some jobs were cut, but they were teacher jobs. class sizes now are upwards of 45:1 student:teacher ratio. that is insane and you can't expect any of those kids to get a lot of of their schooling. The teachers are sucking it up, doing what it takes, got their planning time cut in half, have kids in for lunch, for their plan periods, after school etc. etc....all for a pay freeze or to not receive their pay increase when they become more qualified (such as a masters degree). My sister has not receive her masters pay for 3 years now...that is over $20,000 total.

I agree with what has been said that admins need to be cut or they need to be in the classroom to cut down class sizes. At my high school, graduated in 2003, we had a principal, 3 vice principals, 5 deans (basically assistant vice principals), and at least 8 front desk staff/secretaries. I think we had 1800 students. that is ridiculous.