asheris | (no subject)

(no subject)

FEMA asked for trained search and rescue crews - to hand out fliers and recite a phone number.

An irate soldier (from the Corps of Engineers) expresses their opinion (The link to an original post at LiveJournal is no longer valid, as the author has since locked the entries relating to the incident.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In the article by the soldier, it claims "The education system is hurting.". This seems surprising given the record on education spend.

The record on education spending is that it's been cut over and over again. Plus.

In the 70's, when they started requiring public schools to handle all special education needs, the federal government was going to pick up 30-50% of the tab. They've never paid a cent. Individual school districts have had to pay all of it.

Bush's so-called "no child left behind" did little more than mandate several days worth of standardized testing each year (beyond what was already being done). This costs money. However, the bill/law doesn't provide a single penny towards paying for it. (another unfunded mandate- gee, the Repoblicans used to raise holy hell when they thought they saw one of those - what happened?)

School districty fuinding varies from state to state. In some, it's partially from property taxes from the district, and partially from state funding delivered on a set schedule of dollars per student enrolled. For others, it's all district-raised funding, and for others it's all state funding.

Here in MN, it's the combo. sholl funding has been cut by the state darn near every year since the early '90's - used to be they talked about "trimming the fat" - like art, music, foreign languages, some extracurricular activities, after-school programs, etc.

Education funding is so low that in most districts around the country teachers have to buy supplies for their classroom - chalk for the chalkboards, pens and transparencies for the overhead, copier paper for printing up handouts or tests, grade books - it's BAD. Heck, the IRS even had a program for a while (they may still) where teachers could deduct up to $500 in self-paid expenses for their school's classroom needs on their taxes. (Many teachers pay far more.)

Class sizes are soaring - early grades with over 30 kids in the rooms, upper grades with more than 40 per class. Most districts don't have enough books for each student - they have enough for one class, so the books have to be left in the room at all times. No taking them home to study.

Seriously. Find some sources other that Rush Limbaugh and redstate.org, and find out what real record is on education spending. For most of the school districts around the country, it's not pretty.

From what I can gather, education in the USA is largely a state responsibility. So when claims are made that education is "messed up", it seems just another thoughtless swipe [at Bush], given the context of that article.

I can see that the No Child Left Behind, which was championed on a bi-partisan basis to start with, may be running into implementation problems, and perhaps even underfunding problems. However, proponents of its goals have acknowledged that this is a very ambitious program, and will be difficult to achieve.

I am just surprised that given the huge spend, increasing over decades there it's still not good enough:

"...the U.S. Constitution provides no basis for federal action in education. Despite that lack of constitutional authority, federal education expenditures in constant dollars have soared from about $25 billion in 1965 to more than $108 billion in 2002" .... yet, "the Cato Institute concludes there is little to show for the hundreds of billions of tax dollars the federal government has spent on K-12 education since 1965.".

Let's make sure what we're comparing is the same.

In 1975, President Ford signed into law the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, guaranteeing ALL children - now including handicapped and learning disabled children - a place in a public school. Schools HAD to accept all students, no matter their special needs. Under the new law, the federal government was to pay up to 40% of the additional costs created in complying with the law.

Remember, "public" schools in the US means the school system paid for by our taxes. Private schools here are institutions that operate outside that system, such as Catholic or other religions-run schools, do not receive public funding, and thus are not required to take handicapped students. One of the arguments against "vouchers" is that unless private schools play by all the rules - including accepting students whether or not they need special help- they shouldn't be getting public tax money.

I mixed it up with the other mandate in my earlier post- the government has never paid more than 15% of the special ed expenses.

In 2002, nationally, $51 billion was spent complying with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Since that wasn't in place in 1965, let's subtract that from the increase you list. Just so we're comparing the same things.

108-51 = $57 billion That's an increase of $32 billion over the $25 billion from 1965.

What else has changed since 1965, that might account for the change?

Technology. Computer labs, software, etc. are costs that weren't known in 1965.

Gasoline for bussing students.
Adjusted for inflation, in 1965 gas was $1.68 per gallon. More students lived within walking distance of their schools, so not as many students were bussed, for fewer miles driven per day. In 2004, gas averaged $1.79/gallon (in 2005 it's averaging $2.50). More kids live in suburbs and are farther from their schools, requiring more students to be bussed, for more miles driven per day.

Heating costs.
Both fuel oil and natural gas prices have more than doubled since 1965. Thus, keeping school buildings heated costs at least twice as much as it did then.

Free/discounted meals for low-income students.
More students than ever before are from families with incomes so low that they are eligible for free/reduced cost lunches - and most districts now offer free breakfasts to low-income students. DHS, through assorted programs, has been paying part of that cost - bust with all the cuts to food stamps and WIC programs, these funds may be drying up, too.

Increased costs of insurance - be it for the buildings and activities, or health insurance for school employees (including teachers).
From 2000-2005, health insurance premiums have increased over 75%. (The portion of the premium paid by teachers and other school employees has increased at a similar rate.) In the mid 60's, health care was still within reach of the average working family's budget. As prices increased, health insurance through one's employer became more common, and was basically a fact of life by the early '70's. So that's very likely a big chunk of the difference between 1965 and 2002.

Cost of basic items needed by the shools have gone up comparitively, as well. Textbooks, lab equipment, etc.

So let's see... yeah, I think that accounts for all of the difference you list, and more.

Of course, a lot of programs that were part of the basic school day in 1965 have been clost over the last 10-20 years due to funding cuts (with legislators specifically "trimming fat" such as art, music, home ec, shop, offering multiple foreign languages, academic extracurricular activities, after- and before-school programs, gifted and talented programs, etc.) to make up the rest of those increased costs.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only