Why is 10k per student "not enough" when private schools do a better job for half the cost ?

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BigFatCow
private school teachers get payed less than public school teachers.

But they don't work there to get rich, they work there to educate - which is why private schools are better.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Just wondering, cause I don't get it.
My son starts 3rd grade this week. There are 35 students in his class. His teacher said there are no classroom aids because they don't have the money for it. The parents buy all the markers, pencils, glue, kleenex, etc. The parents are asked to help by bringing snacks and to help in the classroom.
Our state spends 10k per year per student and the democrats are acting like anyone opposed to raising taxes is mean and evil because we are in a "budget crisis" and the kids are suffering.
One of the local private schools charges $3500 a year in tuition. They raise another $1500 a year per student in donations and fundraisers. Total cost of educating the student = $5000 a year. Class sizes are smaller, the schools have more and better materials, and the students perform better on state tests.

So why can't the public schools do a comparable job with TWICE as much money ?

i'm not sure where you live, but in NJ, we have 800 SCHOOL DISTRICTS. EIGHT FVCKING HUNDRED. That means we are paying out ridiculous salaries to 800 School district administrators and their Staffs.

.

wonder where all your money is going now?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Private schools AREN'T better. What computers does your private school have?

How does a computer make a school better? Why do you need 30 computers in a classroom to teach math when you already have a chalkboard and text books?

 

[Mursilis]

According to the Center for Education Reform, public school teachers are MORE likely than the typical parents to send their children to private schools. In DC, more than 1/4 of the public school teachers choose private schools for their own children, despite the fact that the DC school system has one of the highest per student spending rates in the country (and is also one of the worst systems in the country). That pretty much says it all.

 

[Spac3d]

Originally posted by: rocadelpunk
I can only offer my exp.

I went to private school from k-12 (same school)

tuition was around 10k a year averaged out...obviously it was lower during lower school years. We had a large cafetaria with varied and fresh meals everyday (everything was cooked during the day) no fast food or things like that...there'd be a main course, a pasta bar, a soup bar, a fruit bar, a salad bar, a vegetable bar and a sandwhich bar.

There was always an abundance of supplies, computers, extra curricular activities...buses were provided by the state...we got the buses because we took their prof. tests...which the administrators tried to get out of taking b/c we never had anything lower than 100% pass across the board and we took them a year or two earlier than the norm.

Teachers were always very dedicated...obviously not every teacher was great to work with, but the support system at private schools is much more of a community than say a public school. Everybody knows everybody type of deal...especially at my k-12, the grades were sometimes integrated...for example, the seniors had kindergarten buddies and would have activities together all throughout the year.

Without going into all the details...yes you can get the same education at a public school as you would a private school...private school more likely to have the courses a year earlier. However, the experience, quality of life, repore with teachers and growing up with friends for 13 yrs...needless to say I wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

There are pros and cons to private school, there are pros and cons to public school

if you must strictly get down to the numbers, a private school student is going to have a great advantage the 1st year of college over a public school student (studies have shown it countless times and don't make me look for any of them) , however after that 1st year...if the student is truely a smart kid, he/she will be able to catch up and will likely supercede the average private school student.

Once again though, strictly by numbers, the average grades/scores whatever are much higher than the average for public schools.
-----

and to answer your question on why public shool's can't get the funding approriated correctly...it's very bad system, I don't know if it's like this where you live, but in Ohio, it's based off of property taxes, so a few public schools are excellent schools whereas others are caving in.

^^^I went to the same school as him^^^. What he said.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Look at where that $10k goes for your answer.

Private schools suck, eh? Is that why the vast majority of congress members put their kids into private schools?

Do they put their kids into $3500 private schools, or $9000 private schools? $3500 is definitely low end in my area.

Originally posted by: vegetation
The multiple layers of administration is what kills public school educational budgets big time. Too many so-called "experts" involved who don't contribute anything constructive to the system, yet are paid ridiculous amounts of money for what they do. I remember as a child seeing a "school district meeting", all I remember is 100 like-new vehicles parking on our grass lawn. I later learned all these vehicles were paid for by the department of education. Why did they get a free car when our teachers didn't ? It took me years to figure that one out.

I agree. Economics of scale only apply to PRODUCTION AND SALES OF GOODS. When it?s people and administration, that theory is out the window. Too much middle management makes the organization top-heavy, expensive, and slow to respond to changing needs. There?s too much confusion and in-fighting to get meaningful decisions made quickly.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: vegetation
The multiple layers of administration is what kills public school educational budgets big time. Too many so-called "experts" involved who don't contribute anything constructive to the system, yet are paid ridiculous amounts of money for what they do. I remember as a child seeing a "school district meeting", all I remember is 100 like-new vehicles parking on our grass lawn. I later learned all these vehicles were paid for by the department of education. Why did they get a free car when our teachers didn't ? It took me years to figure that one out.

so you figured out that they were the ones controlling the money?

I can guarantee you that NO state in the US has it as bad as NJ for corruption in Education.

As i posted above, EIGHT HUNDRED School districts. Go to any map and look at NJ on the map, it is the 3rd Smallest state in the US, ONLY delaware and Rhode Island are smaller and yet there are FIVE times as many school districts in NJ as there is in PA. FIVE TIMES. PA land mass wise about 8 times the size of NJ?

NJ Education Association is probably the most powerful Special Interest group in NJ. Realistically NJ should have ONE School DISTRICT per COUNTY. there is ABSOLUTLY NO REASON to have more.

so instead of paying for School Boards and Administrators for 21 County School Districts we have one for EACH DINKY little Township and municipality.

Sometimes this state makes me sick.

Take for example Georgia, GWINNETT COUNTY in GA is probably the size of the WHOLE STATE OF NJ. and yet this state manages to fit 21 COUNTIES in this tiny state. that would be bad enough but we manage 800 SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

Tell me that's not crazy.

 

[flot]

I actually just got my "estimated property tax" bill (just bought a house) and found that yes I'm paying like $700 a year for someone else's kids to go to a mediocre public school.

I have a reasonably diverse background, went to public school for K-2, private 3-8, public 9, public "magnet" from 10-12.

The public "magnet" (school for nerds) was as good as any private school. However the public school I went to in 9th grade was awful. The private schools were better equipped for actual learning activites (you know, like having computers) but the public schools were much better equipped for secondary stuff (like a class room with 90 $$ expensive typewriters, or the gym which was decked out with more nautilus machines than Gold's)... Some people I know seem to have gotten more "well rounded" vocational type educations out of the public schools (although I imagine this would vary a lot from school to school) but I think you'll get a more focused college-prep type education out of a private school.

Now, yes I do believe that education is something the state should provide. I'm a little annoyed that my property taxes are paying for it (which is something I guess I always knew but never sunk in until I saw the bill) since it seems like punishment just because I own a house... and I definitely question why it costs so much... but as others have mentioned - the state HAS to provide a lot of services (like education for challenged students, busing, etc) and I'm sure that all the exceptions to the average student end up costing a lot of money. But at the same time I'm sure that the normal bureaucracy and govt nonsense is wasting money as usual... and yes for something as personal as your education, I certainly believe that a small school is better equipped to deal with it.

PS: Around here I think private schools range from ~$6000 to $15,000 a year. And yes I've known people who sent their kids to private middle schools that cost more than my college tuition..

edit: sorry had a typo, meant to say public above but wrote private

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Shanti
Just wondering, cause I don't get it.
My son starts 3rd grade this week. There are 35 students in his class. His teacher said there are no classroom aids because they don't have the money for it. The parents buy all the markers, pencils, glue, kleenex, etc. The parents are asked to help by bringing snacks and to help in the classroom.
Our state spends 10k per year per student and the democrats are acting like anyone opposed to raising taxes is mean and evil because we are in a "budget crisis" and the kids are suffering.
One of the local private schools charges $3500 a year in tuition. They raise another $1500 a year per student in donations and fundraisers. Total cost of educating the student = $5000 a year. Class sizes are smaller, the schools have more and better materials, and the students perform better on state tests.

So why can't the public schools do a comparable job with TWICE as much money ?

Actually for handicapped kids like yours there are special programs that help fund their education

wtf are you talking about?

 

[Triumph]

I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that politicians will always squeeze the taxpayers where it hurts, i.e. schools, police, fire, etc. If there is a budget crisis, the rousing cry of "Think of the children!" always works to get more money. For some reason, a cry of "Think of the administrative assistants and file clerks!" doesn't have the same ring to it. When the gov't threatens to cut school funding, they get more school funding AND they keep the beauracracy going.

 

[ElFenix]

because maybe, if you're spending the extra cash to put your kid in private school on top of the money you're forced to pay to the public school, you're actually involved in your kid's life and you want them to get an education. just a thought.

 

[HokieESM]

Originally posted by: kranky
so many administrators are complete dolts who happen to have Ph.Ds,

Actually, most of them probably have EdDs.... which is VERY VERY different. 🙂

Anyhow. My thoughts. Your private schools are awfully cheap. In Charlotte, NC, the average private school tuition + fees for a student was close to $12K a year--especially for the better ones.

There is a LOT of money in the public school system that is pumped into the bureaucracy, unfortunately. Inefficient labor for construction, poor textbook management, poor school supply management, etc. They also spend a disproportionate amount of money on standardized testing--including 'training' teachers how to teach their students so they'll do well on those standardized tests.

Unfortunately, public schools vary widely--mostly depending on location/demographics. Actually, mostly depending on the parents (as a whole, not individuals) of the students--if students are expected to come to school, behave, and have some support at home, you'd be surprised how much they could/would accomplish with minimal supplies.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[DT4K]

Yes, I'm sure about the 10K figure.
That's what it averages in Oregon.
Yes, I'm sure that many of the private schools in this area spend between 4k and 6k per year per student. Not tuition, but total spending per student including donations and fundraising. And they all offer scholarships to low-income students based on need. Without these scholarships, the cost would be even lower.

Yes, they do a better job.
Not because they have better kids, but because they have more teachers and fewer administrators. This means smaller class sizes.
My son has 35 kids in his 3rd grade class.

The only difference with special needs kids is they need more personalized attention so they need more teachers to handle them. This would mean a lower student-teacher ratio. But the local private schools already have this lower student-teacher ratio even without as many special needs kids. So this is a moot point.

As I said, our public school does NOT bus students. The 10k per year is apparently not enough to provide bussing.

I brought this up because I am angry. I am angry that no matter how much we pay in taxes to support our public schools, we are demonized for not paying more. I am angry that my son has to be in a class with 35 students because "there isn't enough money". I am angry that there are thousands of administrators in our state sucking up all the school money while sitting on their a$$es and contributing nothing to my son's education. This money should be going to teachers and classroom supplies, not some administrator.

Yes, I know there are important things that we need administrators for, but if we cut at least 50% of the administrators and replaced them with teachers, our students would get a far far better education for less money.

If you are going to argue that we can't cut administrators, then tell me why

New York's public schools have more than ten times as many administrators per student as the city's Catholic schools.

while providing at least an equivalent, if not a better education.
You can argue that the public schools have more low income students, more special needs students, etc.
While true, this simply reinforces the fact that we need more teachers to keep class sizes lower. How does having 10 times as many administrators help these students?
The answer is that it doesn't. Having more teachers would help them, but not more administrators.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
because maybe, if you're spending the extra cash to put your kid in private school on top of the money you're forced to pay to the public school, you're actually involved in your kid's life and you want them to get an education. just a thought.

This is not true at all.
Many rich families have two busy career parents who pay no attention at all to their kids.
And many middle class and low income parents are very involved in their kid's life.
I cannot afford private school.
My wife stays home with our kids because we have always believed that if you are going to have kids, you should actually raise them rather than shipping them off to daycare for 10 hours a day.
So we are very very involved parents. My son and daughter both knew how to read before starting kindergarten because we worked with them.
I know families who are very wealthy and cannot be bothered to pay attention to their kids because they are too busy with their careers and their social lives.

But that is not really the point. I was not arguing about why private school kids did better. Only asking why public schools required twice as much money to educate a child.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: ElFenix
because maybe, if you're spending the extra cash to put your kid in private school on top of the money you're forced to pay to the public school, you're actually involved in your kid's life and you want them to get an education. just a thought.

This is not true at all.
Many rich families have two busy career parents who pay no attention at all to their kids.
And many middle class and low income parents are very involved in their kid's life.
I cannot afford private school.
My wife stays home with our kids because we have always believed that if you are going to have kids, you should actually raise them rather than shipping them off to daycare for 10 hours a day.
So we are very very involved parents. My son and daughter both knew how to read before starting kindergarten because we worked with them.
I know families who are very wealthy and cannot be bothered to pay attention to their kids because they are too busy with their careers and their social lives.

But that is not really the point. I was not arguing about why private school kids did better. Only asking why public schools required twice as much money to educate a child.

well, since you can't prove that for all cases children attending private schools have less or the same parental involvement in their lives your first statement is false. providing anecdotal evidence to support your opinion doesn't help.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Yes, I'm sure about the 10K figure.
That's what it averages in Oregon.

I'm not so sure about that 10k per student. Unless I'm reading this wrong, it looks like it's only about $5,000 per student. That's a far cry from 10k per student. (search for "2002-03 State School Fund" to find where I think it's just 5k per student) I'm not saying you have a legitimate argument (the beauracracy is terrible in the school system), I'm just saying you should double check your figures.

 

[brxndxn]

Private schools don't bus students.

My private school did.

Private schools don't have subsidised food programs.

Mine did.. We ordered it planned out a month in advance and most of it was from local restaurants. We got it very cheap - about $1.50 - $2 per lunch.

Private schools don't have the large number of learning disabled kids.

No, but we had a few. They were tutored privately mostly. Also, we had a lot of dumb kids. For dumb kids, we had dumb classes. They were 'forced' to learn.

Private schools often times have limited sports programs.

Our school was practically sports. Our varsity basketball team in our high school of 250 kids total beat the local public high school team of 3000 kids every single year. It wasn't even close - a total blowout. Every private school I have seen has had wonderful sports programs - at least here in FL.

Of those limited sports programs many are privately funded by donations.

Yup.. we had fundraisers for our sports. However, so do public high schools. I see a car wash fundraiser every weekend for our local public high school.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that politicians will always squeeze the taxpayers where it hurts, i.e. schools, police, fire, etc. If there is a budget crisis, the rousing cry of "Think of the children!" always works to get more money. For some reason, a cry of "Think of the administrative assistants and file clerks!" doesn't have the same ring to it. When the gov't threatens to cut school funding, they get more school funding AND they keep the beauracracy going.

Exactly right.

OK, listen to this.
An income tax increase bill was recently rejected by the voters in Oregon.
So right afterwards, the legislature goes ahead and passes the largest income tax increase in state history WITHOUT reffering it to the voters. So they ask if we will raise our taxes, we say no, then they do it anyway.

Now the way it works is that even though this has already been passed by the legislature, a petition can be referred to the voters to cancel this tax increase. Everyone agrees that it is almost certain that this will happen and the voters will choose to get rid of the tax increase.

So what does the Oregon Superintendent of Public Education do? She sends memos to all the school districts and publicly encourages them to all go ahead and spend the extra money. Money that they don't yet have and almost certainly will never have.
Why?
Because if she can convince the schools to spend this extra money before they have it, then by the time the bill goes to voters in February or March, they will be able to scare the voters by saying, accurately at that point, that if we turn down the tax increase, the schools will have to close 2 months early.

How's that for using scare tactics and trying to squeeze the taxpayers.
Luckily, many of the school districts have said that they will not spend money they don't have yet.

 

[DT4K]

Here are the figures from 3 years ago.
The 2003-2004 figures were published recently but I haven't found the link yet.

Here are figures for 2001-2002 showing Oregon spending of almost 9k.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder

Originally posted by: Shanti
Yes, I'm sure about the 10K figure.
That's what it averages in Oregon.

I'm not so sure about that 10k per student. Unless I'm reading this wrong, it looks like it's only about $5,000 per student. That's a far cry from 10k per student. (search for "2002-03 State School Fund" to find where I think it's just 5k per student) I'm not saying you have a legitimate argument (the beauracracy is terrible in the school system), I'm just saying you should double check your figures.

Actually, you are reading it wrong.
The 5k figure is not the total spending per student.
I'm not sure how they calculate that number, but I believe it's inflation adjusted and may not include federal and local funding, only the portion that comes from state government.
I provided you with links showing that the actual spending averaged around 7k in 2000 and almost 9k in 2001-2002. It is around 10k for the 2003-2004 school year.

In 1960, the average per student spending in public schools was $375. Adjusted for inflation to current dollars, it is around $2500.
So we are spending FOUR times as much money now.
Does anybody actually believe our students are getting an education that is FOUR times better than it was in 1960?
I certainly don't.
Class sizes are the same or bigger now.
But I can guarantee you that we have at least FOUR times the number of administrators per teacher.
And if the education isn't better, what is the point of those administrators.

 

[Argo]

Most private schools are better - hence people willing to pay for their kids. My brother goes to a private school and I believe it costs around 6k per year and he's only 5th grade. That cost is higher for private high schools. Plus, the school hits my parents with another 1k+ in uniforms, bus fees, books and other fees.

Also, where did you get the 10k number?

 

[HokieESM]

Shanti... I completely understand your bitterness. But you MIGHT have to do what thousands of middle class Americans do every year to solve their "school problems": move. Sadly enough, school systems and even individual schools aren't equal. My parents moved twice during my education and my sister's to put them in a more favorable school situation.

As far as comparing our education now to the 1960s... it depends. SOME students are getting four times the education. Calculus in a high school was a rarity in 1960... its in MOST now. The level of science taught is MUCH higher. Also, a LOT less of the population reached high school--many more people dropped out in those days (and it was more acceptable).

Unfortunately, between bureaucracy and stupid insistence that "every child must be educated the same" (we couldn't possibly stoop to teaching a kid who wants to be a mechanic a class in auto mechanics, yet he MUST take british literature and formal math classes in algebra and geometry), we have a LOT of waste. I know Charlotte schools recently paid the new superintendent $4.4 million for the next 3 years.

Anyhow... public education is a sad state of affairs... but its not ALL bad. You'll find some brilliant public schools around--with good teachers, good students, and good test scores... but you really do have to look. And THAT is a shame.

 

[Stark]

Oversimplification of the day:

Public schools are run by liberals.
Private schools are run by conservatives.

Oversimplification #2:

God is banned from Public schools.
God is welcomed in Private schools.


Why being a public school teacher sucks.

 

[brtspears2]

This could explain why my grammer and spelling sucks, as I went to public schools.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: HokieESM
Shanti... I completely understand your bitterness. But you MIGHT have to do what thousands of middle class Americans do every year to solve their "school problems": move. Sadly enough, school systems and even individual schools aren't equal. My parents moved twice during my education and my sister's to put them in a more favorable school situation.

As far as comparing our education now to the 1960s... it depends. SOME students are getting four times the education. Calculus in a high school was a rarity in 1960... its in MOST now. The level of science taught is MUCH higher. Also, a LOT less of the population reached high school--many more people dropped out in those days (and it was more acceptable).

Unfortunately, between bureaucracy and stupid insistence that "every child must be educated the same" (we couldn't possibly stoop to teaching a kid who wants to be a mechanic a class in auto mechanics, yet he MUST take british literature and formal math classes in algebra and geometry), we have a LOT of waste. I know Charlotte schools recently paid the new superintendent $4.4 million for the next 3 years.

Anyhow... public education is a sad state of affairs... but its not ALL bad. You'll find some brilliant public schools around--with good teachers, good students, and good test scores... but you really do have to look. And THAT is a shame.

I'm not sure how teaching higher level classes increases the cost.
Teachers generally make the same amount of money whether they are teaching algebra or calculus.
Having more teachers would mean a higher cost, but we have the same number or even fewer teachers per student now.

And I'm not saying that public schools are bad. For the most part, I've been very happy with my children's schools. For k and 1st grade, my son was at a public school in a very high income neigborhood. And I was happy with the level of education he received. He had great teachers who spent the time to give him more advanced work because his reading and math skills were several years ahead of most of the other students. In second grade, we moved to another town where the school had a much larger percentage of low and middle income kids. I was still very happy with the school and his teacher.

But I am just very frustrated that he is in a class of 35 students for third grade. I don't see how a teacher can do a good job with 35 8yr olds in one class. And I am frustrated that we are told there is a school funding "crisis" when education spending keeps going up and up while teachers are being cut. 350,000 dollars is being spent for my son's third grade class. Say 50k goes to the teacher. That leaves 300k for what? Maintaining the facilities, buying supplies(much of which, the parents are asked to buy) might add another what, 20k or 30k. So that leaves at least 270k for what? Administration. Do we really need 4 administrators making 70k a year for each classroom?
I think not.
Seems to me we should be able to cut at least half the administrators and be just fine.