But spending is on the decline – down 4% between 2010 to 2014 even as education spending, on average, rose 5% per student across the 35 countries in the OECD.
One big reason: the funding is actually inadequate for teachers.
In the US, teachers earn on average 68% of what other university-educated workers make
Another is that the money is not going to help the families of the students, the aid is really inadequate.
And… the latest reports are that local governments are cutting funds and laying off staff and teachers too, so it is not a lie nowadays.
You’re not putting a lie to the grave at all because it’s not a lie, and as badly as you apparently want to believe all districts are adequately funded and those who claim otherwise are lying, it’s just not true. .
The district I taught in for 25 years had a salary freeze for the last ten years I worked there. We couldn’t afford new equipment. We couldn’t afford new educational resources. There was, however, a big, shiny new football field because capital expenditures like new buildings and football fields can get federal funding. That big new football stadium counted as educational funding, and that money could not, by law, go to badly-needed instructional funding.
University of Iowa education professor David Bills offered one caveat. “What matters is not the absolute budget per se, but the proportion of that budget that is spent on instruction,” Bills said.
Traditionally the United States spends big parts of its educational budget on non-instructional items such as security – more so than some other nations.
These growing inequalities are rooted in the way American schools are funded, primarily through local property taxes that produce significant disparities. Although states try to offset inequalities, they rarely succeed in eliminating these funding gaps. The top-spending states spend about three times what the lowest-spending states allocate to education and, in many states, the wealthiest districts spend two to three times what the poorest districts can spend per pupil.
You think most school districts are rolling in money? You think that across the board, school districts are adequately funded? Think again. Maybe then you’ll quit calling the truth a lie.
Now that’s an interesting attitude. If my watch suddenly agrees with a clock that’s always wrong, not a stopped clock that’s right twice a day, but a clock that is intentionally presenting the wrong time, all the time, then I double check my watch, I don’t hand wave away the evidence that contradicts my watch.
And then I’d look into how it all happened, and even if I still think my watch is correct I’d want to know how this odd circumstance occurred. And in this case I think it’s pretty obvious when you pull back far enough to take in the entire picture. Trump senses the chaos and division that surrounds this concept of returning kids to school. He sees it dividing the country, giving him opportunities to attack his enemies, and the chance to defund public schools.
It is actually clear that he’s right about that. Opening schools right now will be worse than keeping them closed because chaos will ensue, and it’s already started. If the schools are forced open there will be teachers and students who refuse to attend and there’s no way to implement reasonable cautions to prevent a disaster.
You aren’t just siding with Donald Trump, you’re right in line with his good friend Betsy DeVos as well.
I think this is far too complex an issue to take a stance on any single basis. There is no conclusion when taking into account all the factors. Some statistics that indicate opening schools might not be a problem are not enough to make it work anymore than political clowns looking to cause chaos. The consequences of being wrong are too great to treat this as a hypothetical. We have suffered enough already from such short term thinking.
I personally don’t have anything good to add, because I haven’t been in a school in several years. However, this thread on tumblr has a lot of good points, and a couple of good visuals:
No one yet in this thread has mentioned school shooter drills, which I thought was mentioned in that thread, but now can’t find it. I guess they won’t be doing that now, but what happens if there’s a school shooter? How do you socially distance when there’s only a 5x5 or 5x10 part of a schoolroom that the children can be protected from school shooters?
A stance that was shown later that they clarified that the education districts should look at the infection rate to make a decision, the early AAP position (that was really misunderstood by many of the ones in favor opening schools) was a guideline, not a law.
From the latest joint statement:
Local school leaders, public health experts, educators and parents must be at the center of decisions about how and when to reopen schools, taking into account the spread of COVID-19 in their communities and the capacities of school districts to adapt safety protocols to make in-person learning safe and feasible.
Right, but there’s no indication what that means. When are local conditions bad enough to outweigh the damage done by cancelling school? Which of those guidelines must you have the capacity to implement, and which are not essential?
Without any clarification regarding that, it feels like a weasel clause.
I like to think I’m sensitive to the concerns of all sides of this particularly issue, but the ‘school shooter’ argument is…well, not straight shooting. Here’s the way that’s supposed to go. The two sides sit at the table and try to hash this thing out, and the side that doesn’t want to return says, “What about school shooter drills? I guess that’s out?” And the other side kinda softly sighs and nods and lifts the eyebrows and gently says, “Yeah, I guess that’s out.” And there’s a poignant moment of silence, and then they both move on.
Does that follow for fire drills? Because we do kinda need those. We have a real event that requires evacuation about 1 in 3 years. So we both need the practice, and we need to know what evacuation looks like with social distancing. Like, right now, we evacuate if anyone smells gas. Is that still policy? Happens at some school in the district every year.
And in any case, we can’t just not have drills. I think it would have to be the city, not the district, that waived them.
The point is that schools are so, so complicated and these issues need to be addressed. We aren’t just being difficult when we bring them up.
And I agree, the reply was just to point out how the other poster misses still about the spherical cows and the problem of not having the mice that need to put the bell to this cat.
IOW, the proponents of opening the schools now are ignoring that the guidelines are fuzzy still and even worse: they are not quite what the proponents claim to be.
You mean me? I am quite aware that the AAP is not a governing authority. I am quite aware that their stance/press release is mainly “in person school is very very important”, not a detailed game plan for doing so.
To me, the worst threat is the kids whose parents are idiots. Many believe this whole thing is a hoax and those are precisely the parents who aren’t even flinching about sending kids back to the petri dish. They want schools starting again because there’s “no risk.” Their kid will do as the parent—refuse to wear a mask, won’t wear it properly, won’t distance, will cough in someone’s face, will touch every surface they can etc. Set all the rules and guidelines you want, but if the parent hasn’t bought in, neither will the child.
If you want to apply draconian sanctions for those students who step out of line, good luck with that. Parents are already openly disobeying rules and recommendations from elected officials. Misbehavior could lead to a trip to the principal’s office . And then there are those times when kids aren’t as closely supervised, e.g. trips to the restroom, in line for lunch, on the bus…
Well, thanks for saying what does not counter what I said.
Again what the AAP says is not ignored, only that that is not what can be operational until government gets serious with funding, materials, testing and manpower; opening now is really reckless.
You made a point of telling me that their pronouncement wasn’t a law. Using boldface. So I guess I don’t understand what you’re trying to tell me I dont understand.
Yes, that is what is missing are lots of details on exactly what is necessary. There is this from the CDC. It includes useful advice like, “If using fans, make sure they do not blow from one person onto another.” Skimming over it, I don’t see anything too terrible, but it is still full of lots of “consult with local health officials” type language.
The problem is that nobody has hard and fast rules that are proven effective. Anything is going to be full of estimates and assumptions about the way the virus, children, and adults behave. Not to mention different opinions about what amount of risk is acceptable, which often degenerates into arguments about what amount of risk is actually present. As data comes in, those things will change.
Maybe by fall 2021 we’ll have a good sense of how low community spread needs to be for schools to open, what measures in schools are effective at limiting the spread of virus, and what measures don’t make much difference or are too difficult to follow to depend on.
. And then there are those times when kids aren’t as closely supervised, e.g. trips to the restroom, in line for lunch, on the bus…