Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Education In Education Spending, We're No. 46!
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:43 AM
Here's some much more important education news that you haven't heard much about. Tennessee ranks 46th in education spending. We're behind even Mississippi. The bottom of the rankings:
Utah ($5,765) Idaho ($6,931) Arizona ($7,608) Oklahoma ($7,685) Tennessee ($7,739) Mississippi ($7,901)
That's some great company, isn't it? When businesses are looking for places to locate, do you think they consider these rankings? Of course they do. But none of our political leaders—including the candidates for governor—are talking about this. It's much more fun to pretend our schools are great and state government is bloated and wasteful.
Comments (16)
Showing 1-16 of 16
Thanks for putting our education spending in an economic context. Nothing will insure our economic failure quicker than the impending failure of our public education system.
Governor Christie of New Jersey was bragging this morning that his budget cuts were spread evenly across all departments. That means cutting education spending, and that is ignorant. As more states make belt tightening decisions, I hope they realize we have to prioritize education and recognize its funding as the economic investment it is.
Shame on us in Tennessee for touting our headline making projects in education while continually failing to put our money where our megaphone is.
like
dislike
"Here's some much more important education news that you haven't heard much about. Tennessee ranks 46th in education spending."
"Important education news"?
Not really.
Since there isn't anyone occupying space on the surface of the planet who is the least bit capable of proving that shoveling more money into the government run school systems in this country has ever resulted in an increased quality of output
You are so cynical, Gilbert. Doesn't the District of Columbia invest(?) more per pupil than any other system and just look at their results...
Wait. Nevermind.
Money only helps if it goes to the right use. Money will help if it 1) reduces classroom size and 2) helps involve parents in their children's education. The Race to the Top money that is making so much noise in Tennessee doesn't really do either.
Emmitt/Gilbert, what are your solutions?
Well my preferred solution would be for government to get out of the business altogether and let education be just another commodity available for those able to pay for it on their own.
But if the taxpayers are going to continue to be on the hook for it, the best way to ensure that they are getting the best bang for their buck is to get rid of the government school monoplies altogether.
Give education vouchers to the parents for each child and let them be totally free to choose where to spend that money - in a government school or private school. And also get rid of all government employee unions (for teachers and every other profession). There is no REAL negotation between employer and employees in government entities as there is in the private sector. Both are on the same side of the table colluding to rip off the taxpaying public. Put them on the same defined contribution retirement plans that most of the private sector operates on instead of over generous defined benefit pension plans. Getting rid of the unions and their BS work rules would also allow bad teachers to be fired.
That would be a good start.
You mention a lot of things, but nowhere do I see anything directly related to educating young people. You seem to be solely concerned with the relationships between teachers and administrators of school systems.
Directly related?
Let the parent's directly decide what school they want to send their children to based on which one they directly think is doing the best job for their particular kids.
There's no reason it should be up to you or anyone else to decide for them.
All you want to do is mouth educrat establishment talking points about "classroom size" , etc. - which by the way is a fairy tale on a par with the "mulitplier effect" claimed by the believers in Keynesean economics.
The educrats are always pushing that sort of thing as an excuse to get more money.
The taxpayers have been pumping more and more money into education for decades with nothing to show for it.
Time to change the game and introduce competition. That WILL directly improve education - just as it improves every other product or service in the private sector where competition exists. There is nothing "special" or unique about the particular service of education that makes it immune from that market force that applies to everything else.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about improving the world we actually live in. You seem to want to wait on some alternate reality to exist. I am talking about helping young people of this generation next year. If you think classroom size is a "talking point" you know nothing about how a classroom functions and I will comment no further on your position.
You aren't talking about anything of any substance whatsoever.
Getting rid of the government school monopoly and allowing competition for education dollars IS improving the world.
It works that way for everythng else on earth. Education is no execption.
Chadwell, I see you suggest more money will get the parents more involved. How does that work? Free ice cream suppers?
When the move to create more neighborhood schools, rezoning, was in the making it seemed to some that would help by easing the parents trip to the school, make it part of the neighborhood, that sort of thing. The uproar was immediate, racism, resegregation, you know.
GM has been quite specific with his suggestions, BTW. Did you completely miss that?
Chadwell, I know you are not commenting further on GM's thoughtful posts.
BUT, I did look at the picture you have for all to see. There are two figures, one looks like a Buddhist monk and one is in sort of Sherwood forest outfit. Just to lighten the tone here could you comment?
Politicians learned a long time ago that uneducated, superstitious, needy, fearful constituents form the most desirable voting block.
John,
On the left is the late trappist monk, Thomas Merton, on the right is Tenzin Gyatso a.k.a. the Dalai Lama.
Jeff,
Did you catch the report on the mainstream media (I saw it on Today) that Tennessee is also tied for #2 with Alabama as the most obese population. We were behind Mississippi(#1) again?
Think there might be a relationship between our placement on the two lists?
So, Chadwell, you don't like fat people. Let me say for the record I am not fat and do not like the appearance of really fat people. It disturbs me.
You need to research this a bit further. The well known NEJM fat study apparently was funded by the diet biz-pigs.
Anyway, for a good summary of the fat hysteria:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail…
So, John,
Since you are getting personal, I feel free to ask where you learned to read?
I did not express a qualitative opinion on obsesity. I asked if two things might be related.
On another post you question how money would get parents involved in education. I never said it would. I merely agreed that more money would NOT solve the problem with education unless it helped do so.
Again, you are either a careless reader, have a problem with comprehension, or are intentionally obtuse.
