Report: U.S. No. 1 in school spending

[Dow Jones]

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States spends more public and private money on education than other major countries, but its performance doesn't measure up in areas ranging from high-school graduation rates to test scores in math, reading and science, a new report shows.

The United States spent $10,240 per student from elementary school through college in 2000, according to the report. The average was $6,361 among more than 25 nations

Federal education spending has grown by $11 billion since President Bush took office, Paige said, but that includes spending beyond the first 12 grades. Even increased money for elementary and secondary education doesn't cover the law's sweeping expenses, said David Shreve of the National Conference of State Legislatures."

»www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/09/16/sprj...[?]

I guess the only answer is to spend more money.

/end sarcasm

[bfp]

maybe the lefties need to take this into consideration when it comes to school spending.


we need more school vouchers.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
maybe the lefties need to take this into consideration when it comes to school spending.

The problem isn't spending, it's in the lower standards established for schools in comparision to other nations. The academic standards are substandard, there's very little drive for critical education and education with critical thought, and with the push for testing to disprove the US substandard education system, it's only compounded the problem by the drive for teachers and schools to teach these tests rather than the ciriculum. That's well evidenced here.

Another problem is how the money is being spent. Undeniably much of this money goes into athletic programs, which as great as they are for the schools coffers and the athletes, it's not educational. The high school I went to spent a majority of their non-operational budget on athletics, and I imagine that's the standard rather than the exception. Compound that with the gap in education spending between middle and upper class schools and lower income schools. Lower income area schools are generally in worse shape, have less supplies, and lower quality teachers because they cannot compete with the salary offers from better funded schools. That drives down the overall median of education. There are some sociological arguments to be made there, but I don't have the time to delve into all of those at the moment.

Then you have to look at the way education spending works. Although Bush has increased education spending to the states, he was successful in getting it turned into block grants which allows the states to use the money how they see fit, rather than requiring it to be used for education. And with so many states in the red right now that's very bad for education.

we need more school vouchers.

No, we don't. That will just further drain quality educators and necessary funds from where the problems are. What we need are proficient education standards and funding that is distributed equally and focused primarily on academic purposes.

[bfp]

thats wishful thinking.. when the money eventually trickles down through the system it all eventually ends up being mis-managed..

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
thats wishful thinking.. when the money eventually trickles down through the system it all eventually ends up being mis-managed..

Thanks to bureaucracy-enhancing Republicans.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
Thanks to bureaucracy-enhancing Republicans.

haha.. what a childish statement.. unbelievable..



them damn republicans...

who wrote the education bill adam?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
haha.. what a childish statement.. unbelievable..



them damn republicans...

who wrote the education bill adam?

Is that what I was referring to? Thanks for the weak strawman attack.

[bfp]

who wrote the education bill?

[bfp]

the damage that has been done to the schools did not happen over the past 2 years bush and his cronies have been in office... surely you can figure that one out..


The noontime rally at Nevins Municipal Hall Thursday looked like a sort of joint rescue effort, with battered President Clinton and beleaguered Sen. Edward M. Kennedy offering praise for each other's achievements, scorn for their critics and predictions that their political fortunes were about to turn.

"Until the last few days, this had the earmarks of an unusual election where people were in danger of voting against what they're for and for what they were against because of the inordinate success of our opponents in talking things to death and confusing things," Clinton declared to the hoots and cheers of a partisan crowd that chanted, "Six more years!"

Kennedy, a liberal lion and 32-year Senate veteran, got good news Thursday with publication of a Boston Herald/WCVB-TV poll that showed him building a 10-point lead over Republican Mitt Romney.

Clinton, too, seemed bouyed by the enthusiastic receptions he received during a two-day swing to New York and Massachusetts after weeks of being avoided by some Democratic candidates in states where his popularity has sagged. And he brought more than rhetoric to the Bay State: He signed a $60 billion, five-year education bill that Kennedy had been instrumental in getting enacted into law.

In a speech held in the John F. Kennedy Gymnasium at Framingham High School, Clinton declared that the measure had passed Congress "in a bipartisan fashion for all the children of this country." A half-dozen Democratic members of Congress and a single Republican - Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont - watched as the president sat at a scarred school desk and signed the new law.

For his part, Romney discounted the idea that Clinton's appearance would make much difference. "Most Democratic candidates in the country are cutting the president's coattails into parachutes and getting as far away as they can," he said.
But Clinton's new combativeness reflected some feeling in the White House that Democratic prospects were looking a little brighter in the Nov. 8 midterm elections. Some aides say a string of foreign policy successes - the return of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to Haiti, the nuclear agreement with North Korea and the pullback of Iraqi troops from the Kuwaiti border - had helped bolster his standing.

A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll published Thursday showed the president's approval-disapproval rating at 48 percent to 43 percent, a turnaround from the 44 percent to 48 percent rating he had received just a month earlier.

Clinton's aides also said the president was determined to try to make his case on domestic policy to a skeptical public.

"Twenty-one months ago, you sent me to Washington to try to change this country," Clinton told the political rally, listing as his accomplishments efforts to cut the deficit, create jobs and fight crime. "I come here to tell you that we've still got a long way to go, but America's in better shape than it was 20 months ago."
Kennedy agreed. "When we re-elect old Kennedy to the Senate," he told the crowd, "we're going to start on 1996 to elect Bill Clinton."

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
the damage that has been done to the schools did not happen over the past 2 years bush and his cronies have been in office... surely you can figure that one out..

I never suggested it did.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
Thanks to bureaucracy-enhancing Republicans.

okay.. the evil republicans did.. same-difference..

[USAcommitteeX]

Leave it to Adam to turn a positive into a negative

[Adam D]

Originally posted by USAcommitteeX
Leave it to Adam to turn a positive into a negative

What positive?

This is my opinion. . .and no one is ever going be convince me otherwise.

No 1 problem (not the only problem, just the biggest). . .varsity sports. I come from one of those little bitty towns you see in the movies where the whole town centers around the freaking football team. I'm willing to bet 50% of my high school's over all budget went to athletics.

My kids will not go to public school because of this. Maybe that's running away from the problem. But I'm not going to sacrifice my childrens education on "principal."

I'm not trying to start an arguement. I don't want to get into the rhetoric of why sports may or may not be good for kids. This is my opinion, nothing more.

peace. . .

hey heres a kooky idea.

maybe the amount of money spent has no meaning. perhaps its because of a system that inhibits learning.
some schools push sports but lack gifted programs and remedial learning classes. and adiquate facilities for learning, some schools still lack quality lavatories, audio-visual equipment is outdated. books are old and outdated.
some schools are corporate/media indoctrination facilities, with "Celebrate Coke Day" Taco Bells for lunch programs. Nike Contracts for the athletic programs. Chanel One forcing commercials on the students every 3 minutes. advertising above the toilets.
school funding isint balanced. the school in south central LA, gets about the same money from the state as one in beverly hills, where the slack can be picked up by local taxes.
schools are forced to spend money on lawers to keep on retainer to lessen lawsuits. juvenile delenquints are turned over to the schools cause youth detention facilites cant hold them all.
teachers have to teach college lecture hall sized classes and cant suffenciently montor students who need additional help.
teachers are vastly underpayed and overworked and quickly become jaded and apathetic toward education.
general society has removed the work ethic from our children by telling them that if they can shoot free throws or pass a football they can still go to college even though they cant read. children arent diciplined in school so they act up and run wild like lord of the flies, inhibiting education.
theyre full of ritalin so theyre zombified. tv has lowered thier attention span to single digit minutes.
because of the society that lacks "toughening" children snap and shoot up the school, so thier live in fear of each other. also this forces the school to worry about metal detectors and security guards.
children raised in a "deflect blame" society can cite genetics and chemicals and such for thier lack of ability and get sympathy grades.
double standards in the dicipline process exist so when the valedictorian gets caught violating rules they slide so the school can keep its scores up and recieve more funding. while tommy the shop class kid gets expelled.


remember high school fuckers? it wasnt the money, it was the shitty environment.