The Stupendous Failure Of Big City Education: How The Philly Teachers Union Loots The Schools

So I couldn't read the article either but, I am familiar with this. With schools that literally have waterfalls on the walls, ( it was on the news long ago) you aren't going to keep a teacher without good pay.

There are teachers that were buying supplies out of their own money in some of the schools that had issues. I'm certain you can find vids to add to your thread. The conditions these students were in was not what you could imagine.

The working conditions weren't addressed as student related in the news I saw. That could be as well but, it focused on no materials, bad buildings teachers caring enough to make certain the children received an education.

I fixed the link, I put it at the bottom of The Original OP. Hope this helps, Thanks Arjunanda a reply to: Iamthatbish

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: arjunanda

I can tell you from experience that some neighborhoods are barely funded at all so I'd like to know where that money is going.

It goes to the bureaucrats of course. They tell you the schools are underfunded and they know the money will always be found. They know no one will hold them accountable and every single urban school district in the nation is top heavy with them. Every teacher in every union knows that the real money is in administration and I'm not talking about being a principal.

Look, they know that parents cannot afford to send their kids to actual schools, so they know that kids have to go to their asylums. The money has to come to them by law. All they have to do is com plain that the reason the kids aren't learning is that they don't have enough money. Then, when it comes, they simply take fat raises and big bonuses, take junkets, whatever, and precious little gets down to the schools. Who cares about the kids? All that matters is that they show up enough to keep the attendance high for the money to come in.

This is why public education traps are a bad idea. If parents could vote by putting their kids elsewhere, how many of those kids would still be in those schools? But by law, those kids have to stay there unless their parents can pay to put them somewhere else.

a reply to: mattsawaufo

I am not sure if you have been keeping with the times, but the quality of education coming out of the countries colleges has been in a steady decline for a long time.

Having that many people you have to work with does not work, even business do not put one manger in charge of 150 people with out having others they can delegate to, and that is only one class not the full load of classes for the day for one professor.

a reply to: arjunanda

Pandering to the teachers union is old and has almost bankrupted many a good city. New York is still paying for the Lindsey years.

it goes back into the broccoli.

Look, I have no doubt that the education system is often inefficient, as are many other big government systems. However, half of your claims are conflated with the union versus government. The inefficiency of government public schools cannot be all chopped up to unions.

Second, some of your claims like "parochial schools provide 10 times the education" are questionable. At best, if they are better the difference might be in percentages below 100. IF they are better. Also, you cannot compare private schools that often have selection bias issues, often higher socioeconomic status for students, and so on to public schools, period. Often private schools are known for exactly what I just said, and those variables cloud the outcomes.

Third, private especially religious schools often teach things like mathematics or reading well. However, they often fail utterly when it comes to teaching diversity, cultural knowledge, non-religious based history and anthropology, science, evolution, etc ad infinitum. My 5 year old was at a Christian private school for two years of preschool. They explicitly state that everything is taught through the lens of the Bible, including a young Earth for example. Children in a private Christian school will not have the same exposure to different religious people and so on. There are objective downsides to a parochial school or many non-secular private schools.

Fourth, let's talk about tax base. Again, much of how American school systems are funded is based on property taxes, which right out the gate favors higher socio-economic areas and families. Injustice. We are one of the only developed countries in the world that has such a system. It isn't working and it is conservatives like you who in the name of "local and state rights" refuse to equalize funding completely.

As to education and social justice, investing in education for ALL people requires adequately funding it, which means that the current system is not working of using property taxes and other means. Also, it means making sure all schools are quality, staffed well, and so on. Investing in education for all IS NOT "entitlements" and a "welfare state." It is the exact opposite.

VIRTUALLY all economic and social science research shows that giving access to quality education for low income people AND entire societies leads to higher GDP across the board, less poverty, delayed child birth and lower numbers of chidden per woman, higher public health indices, and in the long run, LESS people on welfare.

originally posted by: arjunanda

It’s a repeat of every year for the Phila school district. As the school year approaches they are shocked to report a massive deficit and beg the State of PA for more funding. The $12,000 per child simply isn’t enough, even though Parochial schools provide ten times the education for $9,000 per child. The district has a slight $80 million deficit this year. Last year they had a $100 million deficit and the mayor proposed a soda tax to fill the gap. It was defeated, so they raised property taxes instead. Mayor Nutter’s name is fitting. He is just another in a long line of Democratic mayors who have ruled Philadelphia since the 1950′s and whose policies of welfare handouts for their voting base paid for by taxing the producers, has resulted in a population decline from 2.1 million in 1950 to 1.5 million today. Doug Casey captures the essence of Philly with this definition:

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy): a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

The liberal solution to an ever decreasing tax base and an ever growing level of benefits for the free s__t army and government union drones, is to increase taxes on the few remaining producers. They then flee the city, leaving fewer producers to tax. Rinse and repeat. Your neighborhoods then look like this.

Mods, If this isn't in The Right Forum please move at your discretion, Thanks in advance

Arjunanda

[url=http://" target="_blank" class="postlink">www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: arjunanda

in your opening post, you keep referring to the "producers"...who are these people and, in detail, what do they produce?