10 Facts About K-12 Education Funding

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: WarminIndy

I know it sounds like a conspiracy and it could be, but not necessarily at federal level, but state, see while states have to follow guidelines in order to receive federal funding, it is at state level that education is taught, meaning that while the federal government can make recommendations and offer additional funding for certain programs, it is the state the one that actually have the power to plan the curriculum.

And yes I believe that the public education sucks even with all the money that is invested in it.

According to their own wording, they should not even be receiving federal funding. This is from the Department of Education.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Well if you believe that the states should solely handle K-12 education then any country wide reporting on education measures are flawed. With states handling the education then there isn't a universal consensus of what NEEDS to be taught. Some states in bible belt territory will teach YEC along with evolution (or not teach evolution at all) while others in bluer states may teach more advanced science. A student from red state A graduates with that crappy science education and student from blue state B graduates with the better education, you can't compare them as graduates. They went to school, yes, but one learned lies and the other learned actual science.

Not to say that a red state doesn't have any right in your scenario to declare that as valid education, they just can't expect their graduates to be considered on the same level educationally as a bluer state. If a state were to allow pre-algebra as the most advanced mathematics class before graduating, can we honestly compare them to a school that requires at least Trigonometry?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well, we all need to be more fair and equal. You go from seeing unfairness in the way that whites expect people to simply show up on time and work hard to how unfair it is that families themselves are unequal.

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So now because my husband and I read to our child, we are creating white privilege. It is unfair in the mind of this credentialed academic.

So this is his solution:

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

So now we're back to Plato. But isn't this what Melissa Harris-Perry wants? She wants our kids to be the states' kids.



There we go! All our kids are belong to us.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

Well if you believe that the states should solely handle K-12 education then any country wide reporting on education measures are flawed. With states handling the education then there isn't a universal consensus of what NEEDS to be taught. Some states in bible belt territory will teach YEC along with evolution (or not teach evolution at all) while others in bluer states may teach more advanced science. A student from red state A graduates with that crappy science education and student from blue state B graduates with the better education, you can't compare them as graduates. They went to school, yes, but one learned lies and the other learned actual science.

Not to say that a red state doesn't have any right in your scenario to declare that as valid education, they just can't expect their graduates to be considered on the same level educationally as a bluer state. If a state were to allow pre-algebra as the most advanced mathematics class before graduating, can we honestly compare them to a school that requires at least Trigonometry?

Aren't you libertarian?

Don't you think the FEDS need to butt out?

What business is it of yours?

a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just giving a hypothetical given a set of conditions. I'm not actually weighing in with my opinion on how things should be done. I do that a lot actually. I'm not sure why people automatically assume that because I argue for a certain position that I'm automatically for that position. What happened to playing devil's advocate so that we can analyze all outcomes and not all just agree with each other on something?

ETA: As a Libertarian am I required to blindly always vote in favor of States' rights? Because I don't like being that die hard in support of a political party. I like to be able to flip-flop on issues.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just giving a hypothetical given a set of conditions. I'm not actually weighing in with my opinion on how things should be done. I do that a lot actually. I'm not sure why people automatically assume that because I argue for a certain position that I'm automatically for that position. What happened to playing devil's advocate so that we can analyze all outcomes and not all just agree with each other on something?

I think your dislike of the idea that some might receive education in ideas you don't like is making you play devil's advocate.

I think I prefer the idea that people ought to be as free as possible to make up their own minds what they want for their children, even if it means some will choose things you or I wouldn't choose for them.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just giving a hypothetical given a set of conditions. I'm not actually weighing in with my opinion on how things should be done. I do that a lot actually. I'm not sure why people automatically assume that because I argue for a certain position that I'm automatically for that position. What happened to playing devil's advocate so that we can analyze all outcomes and not all just agree with each other on something?

I think your dislike of the idea that some might receive education in ideas you don't like is making you play devil's advocate.

I clearly said that given that situation, the red state would be perfectly free to offer that education. I, personally, would try not to live in such a state as I've already had experience living in a state with crappy educational standards (Mississippi) and know how detrimental such things are to growing minds of intelligent kids. But if the country wanted to go that way and had some good ideas how it would improve the country's overall education level, then great. Let's do it.

I think I prefer the idea that people ought to be as free as possible to make up their own minds what they want for their children, even if it means some will choose things you or I wouldn't choose for them.

I just don't like this wishy-washy mashup of both states and the federal government dictating what proper education is supposed to be. It should be all one or the other.

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh, a Svengali.

(Let the uneducated go to Wikipedia to look that up)

a reply to: WarminIndy

Does it say that? Or just that the state needs to provide?

From your source

The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution. There is also a compelling national interest in the quality of the nation's public schools. Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support. The primary source of federal K-12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

So they are not saying they should not be receiving funding, just that it should not be solely gov funding

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is a reauthorization of ESEA. The law's express purposes are to raise achievement for all students and to close the achievement gap.

Just because well you made this political first.

a reply to: ketsuko

So now because my husband and I read to our child, we are creating white privilege.

You are saying that, not the person you quoted.

I would never agree to abolishing the family or that kids belong to the state some how.
But I agree that it takes a village to help further our youth.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm just giving a hypothetical given a set of conditions. I'm not actually weighing in with my opinion on how things should be done. I do that a lot actually. I'm not sure why people automatically assume that because I argue for a certain position that I'm automatically for that position. What happened to playing devil's advocate so that we can analyze all outcomes and not all just agree with each other on something?

I think your dislike of the idea that some might receive education in ideas you don't like is making you play devil's advocate.

I think I prefer the idea that people ought to be as free as possible to make up their own minds what they want for their children, even if it means some will choose things you or I wouldn't choose for them.

And that's the double edged sword of democracy.

Sometimes the majority rule is not always the best, and neither is autocratic fascism.

We are to be free to make up our minds, anything less is unconstitutional.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Got you, I see now, yes you are right, is always a hidden agenda behind what the Federal government does, is true that since they have gotten involved in every aspect of the states, the Republic has become almost powerless.

Many states if no all depend on federal funding for then in order to operate, so no wonder the federal government uses funding as briberies.

a reply to: Sremmos80

No, he clearly says that parents who do those kinds of interactions with their children create early experiences that give their children unfair advantages over other children quite beyond whether or not the kids them get advantages in terms of better or worse schools, health care, etc. You ought to read what the quote says.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Mississippi is bad, but so is the school district of most major metros. I wouldn't exactly place my faith in DC or LA public schools.

a reply to: ketsuko

I went to a Baltimore Co public high school/magnet program right after I moved away from Mississippi and I can tell you that Mississippi is on a COMPLETELY different level of educational incompetency than the schools in Baltimore.

I realized I was in for a tough ride when I first moved there in the middle of 4th grade and the class was having public discussions about Santa Clause with the teacher like he was still real. I was completely confused since I had been laughed at for still believing in Santa Clause in second grade when I lived in my previous state of Indiana (Yes, I lived in a bunch of different states growing up).

a reply to: Sremmos80

Haven't you learned yet, EVERYTHING is political, especially when the politics involve a boat load of money being dumped overboard.

Let's put it in a way you can understand, God help me with the slang...

You gots a schul dat don teach nuttin but Twitter and Facebook for scociliatin skills so you gots street cred for bein stoooopid wid de gubmint payin de bougie cash for U to rite dis way..dats whis U aint worth de quality bougie books. Dats whi de gubmint keep U stooopid, coz U won't no nuttin when deys nos it all.

See? Simple.

And don't even tell me dat was white prifilige to rite dat.

ETA: And you see it every day from white and black students alike.

a reply to: WarminIndy

What does that have to do with my response to you saying that the fed's have no reason to be funding the schools?

I am not saying to keep kids dumb, you are the only one saying that.

I am saying that if we fund the schools more, that our kids will do better.

Pretty simple.

Let's put it in a way you can understand, God help me with the slang...

And I am sooooooo sorry I let a bad typing habit through. Can you teach me to never make a mistake?
When you are done going after me, we can continue the conversation

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WarminIndy

What does that have to do with my response to you saying that the fed's have no reason to be funding the schools?

I am not saying to keep kids dumb, you are the only one saying that.

I am saying that if we fund the schools more, that our kids will do better.

Pretty simple.

Let's put it in a way you can understand, God help me with the slang...

And I am sooooooo sorry I let a bad typing habit through. Can you teach me to never make a mistake?
When you are done going after me, we can continue the conversation

My response...what I just typed is typical language found today in every forum and comment section that young students peruse.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Money has nothing to do with it.

All we've done at every level ever since the Dept. of Ed was created in the '70s is pour more and more funding into education, and yet our overall level of educational success has not shown gains.

Money is not a solution. Money is at best a tool. You have given us no actual solution. Do you have one, or are you just going to keep throwing money at the problem and pretend you will fix it?

I will be pouring less money into my son's annual education than the local public schools will and yet I hazard a guess my son will be better educated when all is said and done than he would have been had we simply sent him down the road to the local public school where they would be spending more money on him per year.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes wise spending of said funding is the solution.

Pay teachers more and get more. Smaller class sizes, better supplies at the schools for the kids to use ect.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Which had nothing to do with the question...

You said per your source that there should be no federal funding.
That is not true.