4 Day School Week in Some Parts of the Country

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Gadiantor
I don't see how you draw the conclusion about money from the comparison of cost of home schooling to public schooling. Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.

It is pretty simple really. If a home schooled kid has $500 spent on his education and this kid CRUSHES a public school educated kid who had $6,000 spent on him, clearly money is not the important factor. If money were truly the most important factor, and therefore we needed to spend more on public education, then the $500 home schooled kid would show some degree of suffering as a result of less money being spent.

Add to the fact that in real dollars, education spending has increased 2000% per capita since the 1960s, along with dramatic DROPS in literacy and graduation rates, it seems pretty obvious that spending more money is not the solution. There is not a lack of money being spent on education.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
I can't stop doing this and even come close to expressing what is on my mind. Possibly yours is simply the wrong forum for me to try to talk politics in. I tend to look at all issues from multiple angles. I have never had that be a real problem before for anyone.

There is nothing wrong with looking at an issue from multiple angles, but that is not what you are doing.

You are taking totally different issues and mixing their facts.

For example, imagine you were mixing research on cow methane (this really gets federal funding) and oil conservation. Assume the cow methane research said "after 20 years, there has been no noticeable benefit from this research." Now, if you used that conclusion about cow methane research and applied it to whether or not we should continue oil conservation research, it would be totally messed up. You would have taken a fact from one issue, and used it in a discussion of a completely different issue.

That's what you have been doing here lately. You've been taking bits and pieces of one issue, and then dropping them into a totally different issue. That causes a severe incongruity.

You did it twice in discussions related to immigration. In one, you used information about foreign labor in foreign factories and in discussiong the plight of immigrant workers working in the US. That doesn't work. Then in a later issue, you did the reverse.

Then here, you keep obsessing over the value of the parent educators time when that is not the issue whatsoever.

If non-wage spending on one type of education is $500, and non-wage spending on another is $5000, and the cheaper one is doing better, isn't it pretty obvious that the extra $4,500 spent on the 2nd type is clearly not doing a whole lot?

It doesn't matter how much the parent's time is worth. The point is that spending money is clearly not what makes for a good education, since a home schooler spends very little money and produces an excellent education.

Some people are always saying "We have to spend more money on education. More labs! More field trips! More technology in the school! Bigger schools! More supplies!" and other crap. Apparently, all this ancillary crap is not what determines how good someone's education is, since the home schooled kids get very little of that type of expenditure and do a lot better in the end.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
If non-wage spending on one type of education is $500, and non-wage spending on another is $5000, and the cheaper one is doing better, isn't it pretty obvious that the extra $4,500 spent on the 2nd type is clearly not doing a whole lot?

I know. I get that. I understand. It's just that the information here translates in my poor little bovine brain to something rougly equivilent to, "Did you know that after paying for school buildings, busses, fuel, administrative overhead, insurance, legal defense, support staff, 5 meals a week, curriculum reviews, and in some cases massive security, that it costs more in non-salary expense to educate kids at a school than it does at home?"

Well, yeah. I knew that... I then ask myself, "Moo cow, why did ANYONE ever go to the trouble of making schools?" The answer appears to be that it is another example of the specialization and division of labor that typifies the modern era of industrialization. It turns out that if you take that lost household income I keep harping on into account, suddenly it becomes painfully clear why it is more efficient overall to have one person teaching 20 kids, even with the expanded overhead, than each and every child being taught at home. Right? Or where did I drift off into crazy land?

Originally posted by Aristotle
Some people are always saying "We have to spend more money on education. More labs! More field trips! More technology in the school! Bigger schools! More supplies!" and other crap. Apparently, all this ancillary crap is not what determines how good someone's education is, since the home schooled kids get very little of that type of expenditure and do a lot better in the end.

Amen. No argument here. Spend smart. Yes indeed! It's just that even if things were streamlined idealy there would still be more non-wage overhead for a school system than for a home schooled child. That still doesn't make it cheaper in real dollars that take the cost of not working into account to educate children at home. It merely would make the school system even more efficient than it already is. Sounds all wrong, but that's the fact. It's more efficient even in its present state than teaching everyone at home. It's not illegal to home school after all. Why are so few people doing it?

Because it is expensive in terms of lost wages is my guess. Oh, there are other reasons. Some argue that the child doesn't learn social skills at home and so forth. But basically, I suspect money is at the root of most of it. Again, call me a cynic.

Plus, that stat doesn't answer the issue of why it is that poor school districts are performing worse. Your reply to Cyrinne on that seems to have missed that in some cases the kids don't actually get to a better school. They get to a stopgap state run school. Guess who was running the previous school that just failed? Imagine the chaos of relocating an entire school's population. Are there even enough schools, public or private, to absorb the overflow? Where is the standard to decide whose fault it all was and get rid of the right people and rehire the right people? Or do they just shuffle back into the system and get lost in the ebb and flow of a constant percentage of schools that fail every year, coincidentally in the poorest districts for some mysterious reason? It's not that I am saying not to try, it is that I am suggesting there is a lot more to the picture here than NCLB or voucher proponents are letting on.

Surely you understand that I of all people support the whole idea of vouchers for religious schools. *blush* Well, I do... But... I don't claim that it is going to cure all of our educational woes. And there are any number of things in the line of the liberal bias of the NEA that if I even knew about them would probably send me into paroxysms. I hope that doesn't come up anytime soon for my sake.

Perhaps it's not so much more money as a redistribution of money that is needed, but as I tried to point out earlier there is resistance to that as well, as evidenced by the failure of voucher referendums.

Not only that, but for parents who are not so hot at english, math, or both, there's really not much of a choice. They need someone's help no matter what.

We agree on so much more here than we disagree. I have no idea really even why this is an issue. I have my side of the story on the other thread as well, but it is becoming moot. I found this post much easier to understand and deal with though. Thanks for not hoping I never procreate.

[Aristotle]

Argh.

For the love of god, this is not a question of which type of education is cheaper or which is more expensive, nor has it ever been. Ok?

If you wanted to get serious, and totalled up the cost of buildings, land, environmental impact studies, school buses, insurance, equipment, desks, chairs, cafeteria equipment, gynasium equipment, sports fields, zillions of administrators, assistants and secretaries for these administrators, office equipment, endless faxes and memos back and forth between administrators, and everything else that goes into public school, it would absolutely dwarf the cost of home schooling or even the ABSURD and false postulate that a parent who home schools has sacrificed potential income from working.

But that is not the issue. This has never been a comparison of which type of education is more expensive, for the sake of knowing which was more expensive.

I am begging you not to make me say that 100 more times.

The comparison of money spent per child is relevant because it clearly illuminates the fact that the amount of money being spent on each child is NOT THE DETERMINING FACTOR in whether or not he/she gets a good education.

Furthermore, the statistic is the amount of money actually spent PER CHILD PER ANNUM on things like supplies, transportation, teaching materials, etc. Capital costs, buildings, and that sort of thing are paid for in an entirely different manner.

The point is not: Ha Ha! Public school costs more, therefore it sucks!

The point is: They already spend 10 times as much per kid at public school than someone spends on a home schooled kid, and the home schooled kids get a better education. Thus, the problem is not the amount of money being spent on each kid, but something else. Maybe we should diagnose and address that something else, and stop begging for more money to throw down a hole.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a guy named Bob who does not enjoy watching television. His friend Joe says "Hey, the reason you don't like television is because you don't have an HDTV." So Bob tosses his $500 TV, and buys a $5,000 HDTV. Turns out, Bob doesn't like watching TV any more than he did before (and maybe he enjoys it less, because his HDTV is more complicated to use and setup). Then Joe comes along and says "Oh, well, hmmmm. I know. I bet you'd enjoy TV more if you got a $10,000 plasma HDTV."

The important part of the story is not which TV is more expensive or even which TV is better. What is important is the absurdity of Joe's latest suggestion. If going from a $500 TV to $5,000 TV had no positive effect on how much Bob enjoyed TV, it is pretty stupid to assume a $10,000 TV will have a positive effect.

[Gadiantor]

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is pretty simple really. If a home schooled kid has $500 spent on his education and this kid CRUSHES a public school educated kid who had $6,000 spent on him, clearly money is not the important factor. If money were truly the most important factor, and therefore we needed to spend more on public education, then the $500 home schooled kid would show some degree of suffering as a result of less money being spent.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The point is: They already spend 10 times as much per kid at public school than someone spends on a home schooled kid, and the home schooled kids get a better education. Thus, the problem is not the amount of money being spent on each kid, but something else. Maybe we should diagnose and address that something else, and stop begging for more money to throw down a hole.

Here is an analogy:

Imagine a guy named Bob who does not enjoy watching television. His friend Joe says "Hey, the reason you don't like television is because you don't have an HDTV." So Bob tosses his $500 TV, and buys a $5,000 HDTV. Turns out, Bob doesn't like watching TV any more than he did before (and maybe he enjoys it less, because his HDTV is more complicated to use and setup). Then Joe comes along and says "Oh, well, hmmmm. I know. I bet you'd enjoy TV more if you got a $10,000 plasma HDTV."

The important part of the story is not which TV is more expensive or even which TV is better. What is important is the absurdity of Joe's latest suggestion. If going from a $500 TV to $5,000 TV had no positive effect on how much Bob enjoyed TV, it is pretty stupid to assume a $10,000 TV will have a positive effect.

You're doing the same thing as Lokrian and using facts that don’t apply to the argument…only you’re using unrelated facts to support something that is obviously true, so I don’t take great exception to it.

How much money it costs to home school is completely irrelevant to how much money is needed to provide a good education at a public school. In your analogy you point out that it is stupid to spend money on a more expensive TV if it isn’t fulfilling its role (providing entertainment). If the TV is public schools than an entertaining book is home schools. If Bob enjoys reading books the entertainment value he gets from a $7.95 paperback has absolutely no impact on the effectiveness of the TV at any price. It illustrates that Bob is better off buying a book than a new TV since he gets more value out of the book. The fact that spending more money on a new TV isn’t increasing his entertainment stems from different reasons. Your analogy describes the situation well, but that’s because it isn’t comparing the cost of an entertainment alternative as a justification. Too much money is definitely being spent on the TV, but that is an independent issue from how much bang for the buck Bob gets from books.

The fact that home schooling is cheaper and gets better results does not support any conclusion about the affect of funding on public schools. The reason that home school kids don't suffer is because they are getting specialized individual attention that is not available in public schools. They are benefiting from a different form of education. This proves that money is not an important factor in the success of education…if you are willing and able to give/get your child specialized individual education. Home schooled kids get a better education at a much lower cost than public schools. That is the only thing that you can prove with the $500 and $6,000 figures. You can’t use those figures to determine how important funding is to public schools, or even how much funding public schools need per student.

Just think of a public school running on $500 per student. If a teacher’s salary is $25,000 a year you’d need 50 students just to cover the salary. Just to get an average class size at $25,000 per teacher you’d need $1,000 per student. More money, to a certain point, is going to get you a better learning environment (better class size and better facilities). The problem is that current funding is beyond that point and dollars aren’t being spent in the right places. This is independent from the costs of home schooling.

Think of it this way. Let’s say that the optimal cost for providing a public school education is $2,500 per student. The government decides to fun schools at $3,000 per student. Administrators find all sorts of ways to spend the money, but they aren’t getting the job done. The government raises funding to $4,000 per student, but gets no better results. Administrators make excuses and say they need more money, so the next year they get $6,000 per student. Obviously way more money is being spent on public education than is needed. This is true whether the cost of home schooling is $500 per student or whether it is $50,000 per student.

Public schools need money to function. It is an important factor for them since they have to pay teachers, cover utility costs, and maintain their facilities and equipment…as well as pay corrupt administration, which only adds to the problem. The point you're trying to make would be better illustrated by comparing public schools to each other (compare oranges to oranges). If one public school spent $500 per student and those students outperformed another public school that spent $6,000 per student your point would be proven. I’d be very interested to see a comparison of public schools that compares the cost per student and the results they get. I’m inclined to believe that schools that are under funded perform worse than schools that are over funded. I’m sure there is some information out there, I’ll look around tonight when I get done breaking in my new running shoes!

Originally posted by Aristotle
Add to the fact that in real dollars, education spending has increased 2000% per capita since the 1960s, along with dramatic DROPS in literacy and graduation rates, it seems pretty obvious that spending more money is not the solution. There is not a lack of money being spent on education.

This fact is much more relevant to the point. We’re paying more and getting less now than in the 1960’s, and there is no way to explain why other than gross mismanagement and/or corruption.

I agree that the current public education system is over-funded. The government has been throwing money at public education in an effort to improve it, and have gotten absolutely no results. This is because school administration has been woefully inadequate and in many cases corrupt. The answer isn’t to add more funding, it is to hold administrators accountable and force them to get the most out of every education dollar. It wouldn’t hurt to massively cut spending on administration either.

Anyway, to get back on the original topic…I think that a four day school week would be awesome! Not only should you be able to get the same results, hopefully better since teachers have a longer dedicated block of time to prepare and plan, but my family would spend more time together! For those that need daycare they can get it through a daycare provider. People have to figure out daycare solutions in the summer when the kids are out of school, and if they are shift workers or work weekends, so the argument of what to do with kids shouldn’t even come up. You do the same thing you do when you need daycare any other time.

[Isaviel]

Originally posted by Dalaena
I think, as usual, we leave out the most important part of the school system: the parents.

When you have concerned parents who give a crap about their children's education, they will do better in school than parents who see school as day-care already paid for by their taxes. How much do you want to bet that the biggest concern for 4-day school week is "Well, where am I going to put my kid for that day then?"

I haven't gotten to read this whole thread yet but this caught my eye. Thank you! I have been fighting with my son's school... this will be the third year to ensure that he is getting taught properly. It has been a battle but I'm not giving up. With the class I'm currently taking it has made me more aware of learning styles. This will aid me in helping my son even more.

One thing I had heard on the radio which I think is a great idea and something I will be doing in the future is that a woman wrote a resume on her child and sent it to the teacher. Explaing her objective for the year for her child. What her child is about. Past experiences in school and what she does best in. I really want to do the same for my child so that the teacher taking him in for a year understands him better and knows what to expect of his learning styles. I can only see this benefitting the teachers instead of getting a bunch of new kids in and expecting them to all learn the same way.

I have to find time to finish reading this thread but home schooling has it's benefits I'm sure but not everyone can do it. Also, it's important for kids to have interaction with other kids. That's why they claim that kids who go through daycare seem to fall into the whole school thing better and end up doing better in school as a result to one not going to daycare.

Home schooling isn't all about the costs either. It's having the time to do it. I know I couldn't.

I'll find time to read more as soon as I can. Interesting thread!

[Cyrinne]

Originally posted by Aristotle
*chuckle* Cyrinne, of course they have the bullshit company line on their web site. That doesn't change what they actually DO politically.

I was giving an example so people could find it and look it up on the web. I think where an organization puts their money is hardly bullshit, and the money and labor they put into the National Board Certification program, and loans and scholarships for teachers who want to seek that kind of certifcation speaks a lot.

I know what you feel about what they do politically, and I wish they didn't because it kills their credibility. But there's also a lot more to the organization than bitching about the fact that they have a leftist slant.

Anyway, thats really going to be my last post on the subject because that isn't what the thread is about.

Educational funding is really continuing to baffle me. I too have read how much we've spent on education in Federal funds in this administration, and how it is the most ever. But I am still buying supplies for my classroom (including consumable supplies that I won't ever see again) with my own money. Though I at least get a paltry tax break for it now.

I know it's all supposed to be public record, so its all hidden somewhere for us to read. But I can't find it. I would love to see where this money went. All I know is, it isn't in my classroom and it isn't in my bank account.

[Isaviel]

Can we move half of this thread to a new thread called Homeschooling?

When we do move this take a look at this site Pros and Cons of homeschooling

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Furthermore, the statistic is the amount of money actually spent PER CHILD PER ANNUM on things like supplies, transportation, teaching materials, etc. Capital costs, buildings, and that sort of thing are paid for in an entirely different manner.

I asked about how this figure was arrived at earlier. There doesn't seem to be a reference anywhere. I found a site where a figure called "Average Cost per Student" is arrived at by dividing the operating budget by the projected enrollment. Some of the things I rattled off may not be in the projected operating budget, but it includes a whole lot of things of the general sort I was describing I feel sure. Some of the things I rattled off are actually in your list correcting me.

So I'm not sure how I was ever supposed to know how this stat was arrived at. All I ever said about it at the beginning that started this is that it was rather opaque to me. I still don't know how it was arrived at. It doesn't tell me much.

Look at the stat right with it in your original post. Even in home school, there is a point of diminishing returns on spending. That's common sense. But the performance aspect of it that you bring up could be something as simple as that the kids that are home schooled have smart, involved parents. Who home schools if they know they can't teach their kids what they need to know? So you could well be pulling your sample from the kids who would be doing better overall in public schools as well. Still ends up saying little about exactly what needs to be done to make public schools better with or without extra money.

Somewhere burried in the body of my last reply I agreed though that simply throwing money at the problem without looking to see where it is going and why is not a good idea. Spend money smart, I think was my actualy phrase.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Gadiantor
The fact that home schooling is cheaper and gets better results does not support any conclusion about the affect of funding on public schools.

Especially given that it is not cheaper in the first place if the expense is figured with all the actual costs, which brings me back to my original post.

Look, to break through all the b.s., schools that are located in higher socioeconomic areas perform better than schools that are not. End of story. It appears to be independant of how much is spent per student, but my personal belief is that hidden in that statistic is that if you spent more money ON THE RIGHT THINGS, like the teacher to student ratio for example, or something to do with a more effective discipline policy (why that would take money I don't know, but just supposing), it would make a dent.