Public Schools United States of A

[MathiasOfAthens]

Are they provided for by taxpayer money by the Constitution or any subsequent amendments?

[Vanoi]

Are they provided for by taxpayer money by the Constitution or any subsequent amendments?

Schools get tax payer money, but not because of the Consitution. Its because of the states. States usually handel education, not the federal governemnt.

[xcorps]

If you mean Federal money, then yes. But not by rote. The power to fund public education is inferred through legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...u_of_Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...n,_and_Welfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...t_of_Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departm...ganization_Act

Sorry for the formatting in the spoiler, but skip to the section in red.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

20 usc 3401.

SEC. 101. The Congress finds that-

(1) education is fundamental to the development of individual

citizens and the progress of the Nation;

(2) there is a continuing need to ensure equal access for all

Americans to educational opportunities

of a high quality, and

such educational opportunities should not be denied because of

race, creed, color, national origin, or sex;

(3) parents have the primary responsibility for the education of

their children, and States, localities, and private institutions

have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental

role;

(4) in our Federal system, the primary public responsibility for

education is reserved respectively to the States and the local

school systems

and other instrumentalities of the States;

(5) the American people benefit from a diversity of educational

settings, including public and private schools, libraries, museums

and other institutions, the workplace, the community, and

the

home;

(6) the importance of education is increasing as new technologies

and alternative approaches to trahtional education

are

considered, as society becomes more complex, and as equal

opportunities in education and employment are promoted;

(7) there is a need for improvement in the management and

coordination of Federal education

programs to support more

effectively State, local, and private institutions, students, and

parents in carrying out their educational responsibilities;

(8)

the dispersion of education programs across a large number

of Federal agencies has led to fragmented, duplicative, and often

inconsistent Federal policies relating to education;

(9)

Presidential and public consideration of issues relating to

Federal education programs is hindered by the present organizational

position of education programs in the executive branch of

the Government; and

(10)

there is no single, full-time, Federal education official

directly accountable to the President, the Congress, and the

people.

PURPOSES

SEC.

102. The Congress declares that the establishment of a

Department of Education is in the public interest, will promote the

general welfare of the United States, will help ensure that education

issues receive proper treatment at the Federal level, and will enable
the Federal Government to coordinate its education activities more
effectively. Therefore, the purposes of this Act are-

(1)

to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to

equal educational opportunity for every individual;

(2)

to supplement and complement the efforts of States, the

local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States,

the private sector, public

and private educational institutions,

public and private nonprofit educational research institutions,

community-based organizations, parents, and students to improve

the quality of education;

(3)

to encourage the increased involvement of the public,

parents, and students in Federal education programs;

(4)

to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of

education through federally supported research, evaluation, and

sharing of information;

(5)

to improve the coordination of Federal education programs;

(6) to improve the management and efficiency of Federal

education activities, especially with respect

to the process, procedures,

and administrative structures for the dispersal of Federal

funds, as well as the reduction of unnecessary and duplicative

burdens and constraints, including unnecessary paperwork, on
the recipients of Federal funds; and

(7)

to increase the accountability of Federal education programs

to the President, the Congress, and the public.

[MathiasOfAthens]

So could in theory a state could make public education cost each student fees every year.

[xcorps]

So could in theory a state could make public education cost each student fees every year.

Not just in theory. Aside from taxes, there are multiple fees that have to be paid by parents for their children to attend "free" public schooling.

First page of google, from Ohio:

In Strongsville, parents of every student in grades 1 through 12 will have to start paying a $60 general fee this fall. It will raise more than $300,000 a year to cover the cost of student handbooks, interim progress reports, report cards and paper used in classrooms.
While such districtwide fees are fairly uncommon, many -- Strongsville included -- charge for classroom materials like workbooks that aren't reused from one year to the next. In elementary and middle school grades, the sum usually ranges from $30 to $75. In high school, the charges apply to certain courses, with a science lab or art class typically costing $15 to $30.
On top of that, an increasing percentage of districts make students pay to participate in sports and clubs. Strongsville is charging $100 per student athlete for each sport. But in Medina the price tag is $660, in Brecksville-Broadview Heights it ranges up to $675, and in Parma it could go over $1,000 depending on the size of the team.

[Blaze86420]

Wait, Mathias aren't you American?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yeah so? Should I know this?

[Blaze86420]

Yeah so? Should I know this?

YOU SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING.

[Nevins]

YOU SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING.

Well, in all fairness he should be able to use a search engine.

I personally find it enormously entertaining that we spend the second most per student in the OECD, get crap results and somehow think that we are underfunding our school systems. What a joke.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Not just in theory. Aside from taxes, there are multiple fees that have to be paid by parents for their children to attend "free" public schooling.

First page of google, from Ohio:

Yeah thats what I was asking. Could a state set up a form of tuition and still require every child to attend school. $60 dollars might be low but then they charge for sports and science classes as well? I know there are a lot of athletes that come from poor families... some play in school sports but if it cost them to play they wont be able to?

The cost per student are a lot more compared to what could have been raised through taxes. Surely more than 300,000 dollars could have been raised easily through a slight couple cent tax raise somewhere. Instead you make school more expensive for the poor and the less fortunate.

YOU SHOULD KNOW EVERYTHING.

Of course.

Well, in all fairness he should be able to use a search engine.

I personally find it enormously entertaining that we spend the second most per student in the OECD, get crap results and somehow think that we are underfunding our school systems. What a joke.

I wanted to put this to the forum.

Secondly, we spend a lot of money because there are more people here compared to other developed countries in Europe. Plus it all depends on where the money is spent.

Besides all the money in the world put into fancy classrooms and pretty schools wont help poor hungry kids learn any faster. Part of the reason some students fail is because they fail to properly learn in elementary because they were always hungry. A School experimented by giving out free breakfast to every student in the morning and within several months they saw test scores rise.

[Nevins]

Secondly, we spend a lot of money because there are more people here compared to other developed countries in Europe. Plus it all depends on where the money is spent.

So then we can agree that simply spending more money per student is not educational "reform"? Good.

Besides all the money in the world put into fancy classrooms and pretty schools wont help poor hungry kids learn any faster. Part of the reason some students fail is because they fail to properly learn in elementary because they were always hungry. A School experimented by giving out free breakfast to every student in the morning and within several months they saw test scores rise.

The difference is that even in economically disadvantaged areas we are spending quite a bit per student but are getting crap results. What the US needs is a radical retooling of how we certify teachers and organize our schools, not more money into this crap, antiquated system we have now.

Its not really insightful to compare the average cost spent per student across America collectively. There is far too much difference between states in the US and then between counties and school districts. You really have to break down the USA in smaller slices to get a more accurate understanding of the state of US education from state to state. For instance, some US states are doing decent compared to the rest of the world whereas others are abominable.

This article is great in examining the differences in US education from state to state.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/your-child-left-behind/8310/

Here is the accompanying chart that shows a huge difference in education between states that are performing solidly like Minn. and Mass. and states with horrible education like Mississippi and West Virginia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What is your point? That if you take the highest performing state in the US you are still trailing Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Finland, Switzerlan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein (lol) New Zealand, Czech Republic, Japan, Canada, Macao-China, Australia, Germany and Austria? Sure showed me up there. Its especially insightful that Minnesota is second but spends $1000 less than the national average. hmmmm

[DarkArk]

I personally find it enormously entertaining that we spend the second most per student in the OECD, get crap results and somehow think that we are underfunding our school systems. What a joke.

That's because it's not about funding. The fundamental problem with the US school system is that many of its students don't care for school, and the US doesn't hire the best to become its teachers. US society still has a stigma about teaching, while in other far more successful systems becoming a teacher is a highly competitive and prestigious job. Thus the cream of society does not become teachers on the whole, which is a problem because quality teachers are the most important factor in student success.

[Imperial]

The fundamental problem with the US school system is that many of its students don't care for school

This.

It is a social problem rather than a monetary problem. American students don't care for their education as much as other Western students, mainly because there are numerous outlets for American students to be successful without having an education, like trade schools and the military.

I don't know about that teacher comment though. In my time in public schools, I actually met a lot of competent teachers, at least more good than bad anyways. However, its been a long time since high school.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Not "this" imperial. Essentially saying students dont care pretty much wipes your hands of our failings. Ask yourself why the students are really failing? Maybe there is a reason? Are they poor and hungry? Is their family broke and their parents fight all the time and they have no place to study or do their work?

Your right the problem is social... but it can still be fixed with money... maybe not completely fixed but money can help.

There are also a lot of good teachers. I had one bad teacher who did nothing. The only lessons we had in the english class were vocab which no one really learned... basically the teacher passed around a list of words we were suppose to study on our own. I think part of the reason some teachers go bad is not because they are incompetent but the system itself doesnt help them. They have disruptive students in their classroom and there is literally nothing they can do to stop them from being disruptive except fail them. Failing the student doesnt help the other students learn. Sometimes teachers just give up.

[Imperial]

Not "this" imperial. Essentially saying students dont care pretty much wipes your hands of our failings. Ask yourself why the students are really failing? Maybe there is a reason? Are they poor and hungry? Is their family broke and their parents fight all the time and they have no place to study or do their work?

Your right the problem is social... but it can still be fixed with money... maybe not completely fixed but money can help.

lol

I'm not trying to wipe away anything, just giving the facts as I see them. It is obvious that throwing money at the problem isn't working, the US spends way more than other countries per head but the results are still poor. Further, there have been school programs specifically designed for the impoverished, but that isn't working either.

[Vanoi]

Not "this" imperial. Essentially saying students dont care pretty much wipes your hands of our failings. Ask yourself why the students are really failing? Maybe there is a reason? Are they poor and hungry? Is their family broke and their parents fight all the time and they have no place to study or do their work? .

No imperial is right. Students are not motivated ot learn. its not because they are poor and hungry. My state even proviodes free lunches to students whose familys are poor. Then they offer discounted lunch to students whose family's aren't poor, but struggling.

Students aren't learning because they just don't want to.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Raising taxes isn't the answer. Fees aren't the answer.

In school year 1961-1962 the per pupil expendtures for elemetary and secondary schools was 2,808$. (2008 money)

In school year 2007-2008 the spending per pupil was $10,441.
New York metro area public school spending is around 27k per pupil.


Now go do a little bit of research and see how far the per pupil performance has fallen since then. The problem is not how much money is collected, it's how it's being spent.

Putting band aids on sucking chest wounds doesn't help anything.


There's a study that compares the cost/spending of public schools versus private schools. I'm looking for it.

I am just asking what is better? For a slight tax increase on everyone... a couple cents, or a $60 dollar charge for parents and a choice to send their kid to better classes or after school sports. A 5 cent tax increase could raise thousands and allow kids the choice of playing in after school sports that help them succeed later in life.

And I am not for throwing money at schools.

No imperial is right. Students are not motivated ot learn. its not because they are poor and hungry. My state even proviodes free lunches to students whose familys are poor. Then they offer discounted lunch to students whose family's aren't poor, but struggling.

Students aren't learning because they just don't want to.

I cant argue with this. I remember seeing it as well growing up a lot of kids were not interested in history, math, etc. How do you make the uninterested interested? How do you teach?

Personally from my experience my classes were large. +35 students, perhaps as many as 45 in some classes. I remember being forced to share small tables with other students? Its almost impossible for the teacher to fully teach every one in that environment.

My suggestion is for free lunches and breakfasts in elementary. This provides a full belly to impressionable children. It is in this age that the child learns best, where they learn the skills to succeed in High-School and college.

Regarding class sizing, they have to be reduced. 25 plus is too large and I believe there are enough studies out there to show smaller class sizes promote better learning environments. This would require money of course. New Schools, new classrooms, new teachers. Unfortunately, when schools get a cut in funding they combine class sizes. They through students into overcrowded classes.


@Xcorps
I knew a rich kid from an affluent suburb. His house was a mansion in a gated community. He didnt care about learning though. He had everything handed to him. Fancy cars, tvs, alcohol, etc. I cant recall where his parents were they were never home, prob working, but he had everything and he was a spoiled brat who cared nothing about learning or the law.

[xcorps]

I am just asking what is better? For a slight tax increase on everyone... a couple cents, or a $60 dollar charge for parents and a choice to send their kid to better classes or after school sports. A 5 cent tax increase could raise thousands and allow kids the choice of playing in after school sports that help them succeed later in life.

And I am not for throwing money at schools.

Neither is better. Both are the same approach that's been taken since the 60's. More money, more government.

The entire public school system needs to be overhauled.

[Vanoi]

I cant argue with this. I remember seeing it as well growing up a lot of kids were not interested in history, math, etc. How do you make the uninterested interested? How do you teach?

You have to motivate them. Also you need good teachers. I hated having a teacher who was un-interested in the subject he/she was etaching. It made me feel like the subject i was learning was useless.

Personally from my experience my classes were large. +35 students, perhaps as many as 45 in some classes. I remember being forced to share small tables with other students? Its almost impossible for the teacher to fully teach every one in that environment.

I went to school in South Carolina, and the most students i had in my class were around 40-60. that was a gym class too. Most class i had had around 20-30 students.

My suggestion is for free lunches and breakfasts in elementary. This provides a full belly to impressionable children. It is in this age that the child learns best, where they learn the skills to succeed in High-School and college.

My elementry school provided free lunches and breakfasts to poor children.

Regarding class sizing, they have to be reduced. 25 plus is too large and I believe there are enough studies out there to show smaller class sizes promote better learning environments. This would require money of course. New Schools, new classrooms, new teachers. Unfortunately, when schools get a cut in funding they combine class sizes. They through students into overcrowded classes.

Agreed. its easier for teachers to help students in smaller classes.

[xcorps]

Yeah thats what I was asking. Could a state set up a form of tuition and still require every child to attend school. $60 dollars might be low but then they charge for sports and science classes as well? I know there are a lot of athletes that come from poor families... some play in school sports but if it cost them to play they wont be able to?

The cost per student are a lot more compared to what could have been raised through taxes. Surely more than 300,000 dollars could have been raised easily through a slight couple cent tax raise somewhere. Instead you make school more expensive for the poor and the less fortunate.

Raising taxes isn't the answer. Fees aren't the answer.

In school year 1961-1962 the per pupil expendtures for elemetary and secondary schools was 2,808$. (2008 money)

In school year 2007-2008 the spending per pupil was $10,441.
New York metro area public school spending is around 27k per pupil.


Now go do a little bit of research and see how far the per pupil performance has fallen since then. The problem is not how much money is collected, it's how it's being spent.

Putting band aids on sucking chest wounds doesn't help anything.


There's a study that compares the cost/spending of public schools versus private schools. I'm looking for it.