24 Responses for "David Cappiello in CT-5"

1. DavidShiffman February 26th, 2008 at 11:59 pm 1

   “education (as if they need more money)”

   I don’t understand this argument. Our public education system sucks. Books and school supplies are horribly outdated, if they are there at all. Replacing these things costs money.

   It’s certainly not the only solution to the problem, but to claim that spending less money will result in a better education system is just silly.

2. Eliezer's DC February 27th, 2008 at 1:27 am 2

   It is a fact when Catholic Schools spend about half as much per pupil as public schools on the same “type” of kid, their results are way better.

   Yes, less money does not result in a better education system. But neither does more money.

3. Ryan February 27th, 2008 at 8:04 am 3

   David and Eliezer both have good points. Some schools are clearly underfunded while others clearly have enough money, but waste it. I attended a school that could not be called wealthy by any stretch, but they prioritized and did what they focused on well.

   A bigger problem is the homelife of many of the kids. From talking to two of my friends who are student teaching this term, they can predict academic results to a certain extent based on whether the kids have an intact home or not. This reality has far more to do with school performance than people want to admit. I would be willing to bet this is why most private schools perform well because they probably have a higher ratio of students from intact homes. We can whine about funding all we want, but until parents do their job, its pointless. Teachers should not have to be parents to these kids also.

4. Michael C February 27th, 2008 at 9:24 am 4

   Like all government institutions school systems are terribly inefficient and are bloated w/bureaucracy. Giving them more money under the current rules is like giving a drunk a drink.

   But I do not agree that school systems are necessarily given too little money. They just waste the resources they are given. I work for a prominate private school here in the Atlanta area while my wife teaches in the public school systems. Our private school spends approximately $65,000 (25% tuition, 75% endowment/annual giving funds) a year per student. And that does not include books. Local public school districts around here spend in the $10,000 - $12,000 range per student per year. That is a big difference.

   Local public schools are bloated with administrators who do not teach. Add in the district level administrators and you have a top heavy organization that siphons off a big part of the pie before it gets to the students. Add in resource officers (police) that are there to keep the riff raff in line that can not be kicked out of school and you have a very heavy payroll. Some schools in Atlanta employ up to 25 full time police officers to keep kids in line.

   Its the complete opposite in my private school. Our administrators pull double duty by teaching and handling admin duties. Plus if we have an issue with a kid we kick them out. He is no longer is our problem. Its a big deterrent.

   The answer to public education is choice. Giving parents a choice of where to spend their tax dollars will force schools to compete, and thus become more efficient. Only then can we talk about more money for public schools.

5. Michael C February 27th, 2008 at 9:30 am 5

   One more thing, our teachers average about the same salary as the local school districts. Most private school teachers make considerable less and get better results than there counter parts at public schools.

6. Michael Rinker February 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am 6

   More money for education? I’m so sick of hearing that. Education budgets have skyrocketed over the last 30 years. It is a popular thing to say “let’s spend more on education”. I don’t care where you live, teachers are paid VERY well these days, too.
   I’ll try and find some stats, but if you think education needs MORE money, you are not well informed.

7. Sam February 27th, 2008 at 10:07 am 7

   David, the fact of the matter is that the United States spends an average of more money per student on public education than any other country in the world and in terms of performance our students lag behind the rest of the first world.

   The problem is that schools are not funded equally, much of the money is wasted on bureaucracy and administrators, and as Ryan pointed out, the number one problem in my opinion is the home the kids are coming from and that is not something that can be fixed by government schools.

   Rell pretty much showed the world last year that she doesn’t have a damn clue when it comes to education.

8. Ryan February 27th, 2008 at 10:25 am 8

   You can only take comparing education funding with other nations to a point because there are factors that set the American system apart from almost the rest of the developed world like the cost of transportation. In most European nations, students either walk or take public transport to school. Basically in North America and Australia, this is not the case as the need for a separate transportation system for students exists.

   I am not as opposed to providing more funding if the system did not have so many gross inefficiencies like too many administrators and bureaucrats. If the schools were efficiently preparing students for college or a vocational field and still could not pay their bills, I would be far more sympathetic to arguments for more funding.

9. DavidShiffman February 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am 9

   I agree that money is wasted (in some cases to an almost ridiculous degree), and I agree that family life is a large background. However, books costs money. Safety equipment and personnel costs money. Lab equipment costs money. Perhaps we need to change how money is spent, but saying that they have too much money is just silly when building are falling apart, many students graduate high school at a 4th grade reading level, and many schools use books that were outdated before these students were born.

10. Michael Rinker February 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am 10

    Who is at fault if the buildings are falling apart and books are out of date? I think FEDERAL funding to education should be cut entirely, but I won’t say we spend too much. I’m just tired of the old line about spending more. We keep throwing more and more money at the same monster. If they don’t have up to date books or better facilities after the funding boom of the last 20 years, that’s their own fault for not managing the money given them.

11. Langley February 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am 11

    David, the highest dollar amount spent per pupil is Washington, D.C, which is also one of the worst public school systems.

    So yeah, higher money doesn’t necessarily equal better schooling.

12. Michael C February 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm 12

    Private schools do spend more money per pupil but also do it more efficiently. Giving public schools more money will never fix the problem. You have to reform the system first.

13. DavidShiffman February 27th, 2008 at 12:50 pm 13

    I agree. The system needs to be reformed.

    However, people have been saying that my entire life, and it hasn’t happened, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to any time soon.

    In the meantime, people like you guys are saying we can’t help until they reform the system, the system isn’t getting reformed, and children are being left behind.

    “Throwing money at the problem” is not a permanent solution. It’s a band-aid. But, a band-aid is better than nothing. We need to help students in need NOW in addition to reforming the system.

14. Ryan February 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pm 14

    Honestly the root of the problem is the pathetic excuse for parents we have in this nation. They refuse to be responsible for their kids at home and then blame the schools for not doing a good job when they cannot just be teachers but have to take care of stuff the pathetic excuse for parents refuse to do themselves.

    I know this is a radical statement, but we as a society more or less need to agree to one thing: We need to stress the importance of not having children unless you can provide for them. If you cannot accept the emotional, financial, and lifestyle costs of having kids, you should not have them. Now the government cannot force this mentality on the people, but it should not make it easy for individuals to get away with being pathetic parents. All the incentives that promote pathetic parenting need to be stripped away.

15. Herodotus February 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm 15

    Sam, priorities are the problem. I have worked in four different public school systems in two different states, and I have yet to find a system that make learning a priority. Heck, its hard to find a public school that even puts learning on the agenda.

16. Herodotus February 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm 16

    Michael C, public schools spend a great deal more than private schools on a per student basis.

17. Herodotus February 27th, 2008 at 5:29 pm 17

    DavidShiffman, you would be amazed to see the inner workings of a public school system. The waste, strange priorities, incompetence, etc. that exists in the public schools completely boggles the mind.

18. DavidShiffman February 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm 18

    ” know this is a radical statement, but we as a society more or less need to agree to one thing: We need to stress the importance of not having children unless you can provide for them. If you cannot accept the emotional, financial, and lifestyle costs of having kids, you should not have them”

    This sounds like the pro-choice argument to me, and I completely agree with it.

    Herodotus: I have seen the inner working of public school systems, and it completely boggles the mind. Still, what you guys are saying sounds a lot like saying that we are giving up on these children. That troubles me. Without an education they will never be able to pull themselves out of poverty.

    I also agree that good parenting matters, but it isn’t a kid’s fault that they have crappy parents and we shouldn’t be punishing them for it.

19. Sam February 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm 19

    “Our private school spends approximately $65,000″

    ———————————————————————-

    You mean $6500 right?

20. Ryan February 27th, 2008 at 10:47 pm 20

    It is not a pro-choice statement per se, but a basic observation that people should be more responsible. Do not make babies if you cannot afford the costs. Just like you should not take out loans you could never possibly pay. Oh I forgot a lot of pathetic souls do that too. We just need responsibility in our society as a whole. Instead we have become a nation of irresponsible non-judgemental prideless pathetic souls.

21. DavidShiffman February 28th, 2008 at 12:48 am 21

    What you’re saying is a rephrasing of “every child a wanted child”, a common pro-choice argument. Again, I agree.

22. Publius February 28th, 2008 at 1:55 am 22

    Well, I do agree on one thing — School teachers are the most pathetic, incompetent, unprofessional, worthless breed of overpaid, idiot mouth-breathers in the country. To pay someone more than a nurse or an accountant to work 5 hours a day for half the year is outrageous.

    Most of our current teachers take jobs in education because it’s the default option for someone who’s too stupid to actually get a real job. Having been a TA at a big University, the future teachers are by far the worst students. In a calculus class, I once had a future math teacher who was unable to divide fractions by hand and had already failed Calculus I twice. I assume this is why she’s going to be teaching math rather than actually doing it. I think it was at this point I decided that, if I ever have children, there’s no way in hell I would send my children to be “educated” by some fool whose credentials consisted of an undergrad or masters-level degree in education.

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s time to end the strangle-hold the teacher’s unions have. We should fire the whole lot of them and hire minimum-wage babysitters in their place — we’d get the same level of service until we could train some real teachers.

23. Ryan February 28th, 2008 at 7:47 am 23

    Publius… I agree with your take to a point. Seeing I am finishing my last semester at a small fairly conservative liberal arts college where I am also sort of a TA (I help an older professor with grading tests and quizzes that are fairly objective).

    There are two types of teachers: those who really want to be teachers and those who settled to be teachers because they could not figure out anything else to do. The problems with this situation are twofold. First, those who want to be teachers are almost always females who want to eventually settle down and have a family. They are not in it for the pay, but for the profession itself. They either leave the profession when they marry or when they start having children. Thus we lose the good few we have to be parents of their own children instead of trying to be parents of 30-50% of their students.

    Second, those who are doing it because they cannot do anything else and/or have no clue what to do their life end up doing it for their entire lives. They form even a majority at a small, fairly socially conservative liberal arts college like where I am finishing my undergraduate work. They form a vast majority at public universities. Most troubling, they are the worst students by far.

24. Jason February 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm 24

    Publius, totally agree with what you said. My daughter will go to either a private school or be homeschooled.

    Let the educators educate, not the unions.

    Those who don’t learn can not teach what they didn’t learn.