Class sizes are already too big. Now places like Cleveland are cutting 700 more teachers which will make classrooms have over 40 kids. I come from a family of teachers. Right now my sister is student teaching in a not so nice place in the city, and they already have classes of over 30 kids who can't speak English. But they are going to be cutting even more teachers so that they can have even more kids in the same classroom.
There needs to be laws about classroom size and budget cuts to education. Filling the budget gap by cutting education is irresponsible and will harm the country in the long run. My own tuition is going up a lot every year because even though the SUNY school system only accounts for a couple percent of the NY state budget, we are taking the biggest budget cuts. I'm paying more and in return they are cutting down the number of classes being offered.
And what really gets me is that they will try to increase class size like this, and then fight to pass a law that allows teacher merit pay. Try even getting through the day with a 40+ child class, let alone teach anything. When class size is that big, a teachers job turns into crowd control. The effect is multiplied by the fact that the districts more effected by this are poor where children don't have good home support. Even the bright children with support would have trouble learning in that kind of environment. It's utterly ridiculous.
Well, I think that the merit pay for teachers law is a completely separate beast from the other issue(s) that you are describing. There is a whole thread for it already anyway.
Cutting funds for education does seem to be a common theme, and I really cannot say that I understand the logic behind it. Education is, literally, the most important factor for the long term well being of a society. It seems ridiculous to cut funding for it.
But honestly, I am not convinced that the government is completely interested in people being educated anymore. Our government has started to move down a dark path, it feels like. One in which the government wants citizens to be uneducated, because this makes them less likely to oppose the government to any meaningful degree.
US government budgets are slammed right now and some things have to go. What would you cut instead of education? Mental-health services? Police, fire and courts? Sanitation? Water and sewer? Food stamps? Low-income housing? And how are any of those cuts more fair than education?
I can add something to this. In Hawaii, the children in public schools only go 4 days a week because the state cannot afford to send them the full week. Tourist location or not, Hawaii is one of the poorest states, and our American children is suffering for it.
@ Azerbaijan - The government could easily save some money just by enforcing that people taking government funds to live actually need them. Seriously.
@ Azerbaijan - The government could easily save some money just by enforcing that people taking government funds to live actually need them. Seriously.
I suppose you think the additional employees needed for stricter enforcement will work for free? Or that the money saved this way will cover the salaries/benefits of those employees?
@Azerbaijan: That argument is terrible. Yes, the budget needs to be cut. But are you really arguing that there is 'nothing else' to cut besides education? That statement is ridiculous. Education is one of the absolute last things that should be cut. But in today's society, it is regularly cut first. They can cut back some of the military budget. They can cut back the absurd amount of money that Congress gets paid to effectively do nothing. They can cut back the # of police per populus, especially in small towns. There are plenty of alternatives besides 'less education funding'. The government could not do things like giving billions to various banks, especially if they're not going to pay any attention to what said banks are doing w/ the money.
As has already been said, 40 children/class is unthinkable. No one is getting educated in that system.
Aside from the fact that every person who is on government welfare has a case worker who's job it is to monitor that person, so I don't see how any extra people would be required to implement my proposal.
I don't know what else could be cut, but I do know education is not the answer. Work to reform it yes, but sweeping cuts should be out of the question. They have laws in NY that require 1 teacher to every 6 preschoolers. Why not pass something like this for all primary and secondary public education (not 6 to 1 of course, but maybe 25 to 1)?
I don't know what else could be cut, but I do know education is not the answer. Work to reform it yes, but sweeping cuts should be out of the question. They have laws in NY that require 1 teacher to every 6 preschoolers. Why not pass something like this for all primary and secondary public education (not 6 to 1 of course, but maybe 25 to 1)?
I think it's cute that so many people run to legislation as a solution to problems. More laws means new regulating bodies, new enforcers of those laws, auditers, consultants, you name it. These people all have to be paid.
Don't get me wrong, I think its criminal that education funding gets cut.
The other side of that token, of course, is that the gov. is now shelling out for healthcare. Same old story from the gov- they're robbing Peter to pay Paul. More laws, more control, more government = more cost. You can cut money from elsewhere in the budget or you can raise taxes. End of story.
I think it's cute that so many people run to legislation as a solution to problems. More laws means new regulating bodies, new enforcers of those laws, auditers, consultants, you name it. These people all have to be paid.
I fail to see how a new rule mandating classroom size would add any amount of new regulatory bodies.
the same people who enforce the rules for schooling now? im sure could find a way to fit into their busy schedules to monitor this one new addition he is proposing. the idea that it would cost anything more than a pittance for regulation in this regard is completely false. what your saying is akin to saying a school that makes a new rule banning cellphones would need to hire more teachers and principals etc to monitor it, when in fact the change is so slight and requires such little time to enforce that the people who are already in place to enforce other rules could easily accomodate it.
Class sizes are already too big. Now places like Cleveland are cutting 700 more teachers which will make classrooms have over 40 kids. I come from a family of teachers. Right now my sister is student teaching in a not so nice place in the city, and they already have classes of over 30 kids who can't speak English. But they are going to be cutting even more teachers so that they can have even more kids in the same classroom.
So if the tax revenue goes down what do you propose to cut? Granted, no one wants to see education fall by the wayside, but something else has to go. Especially in ravaged cities, like Cleveland, it's even worse.
Charlotte's considered to be in half-decent shape, but even so...
The worst-case scenario for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools job cuts grew to 1,030 Tuesday, as Superintendent Peter Gorman presented his 2010-11 budget plan to the school board.
A new twist: 164 teacher assistants would be cut, along with 600 teachers and 250 other employees, under plan to cover possible $78million budget gap.
There needs to be laws about classroom size and budget cuts to education.
Well, of course, anyone and everyone is welcome to try to pass such laws or ground rules within their locality. I think it'll be a tough sell. Granted, most people acknowledge that smaller class sizes tend to be advantageous to a point, but it's not like I didn't have lectures in college with 300 people or didn't have high school classes with 60 people either.
Filling the budget gap by cutting education is irresponsible and will harm the country in the long run. My own tuition is going up a lot every year because even though the SUNY school system only accounts for a couple percent of the NY state budget, we are taking the biggest budget cuts. I'm paying more and in return they are cutting down the number of classes being offered.
That's pretty much happening all over the place. Colleges are, in fact, one the easiest things to hit - College is 'optional,' many people go to private schools or don't go to a public school in the state in which they 'grew up.'
We could even have a debate about whether college and/or particular graduate degrees are worth the investment in a variety of scenarios.
Fact is, if you want to be educated and want to go to college, you'll find a way to keep going. Gas gets more expensive but you keep driving your car - same thing. The fact it costs more gives reason to complain, but it's not like we're all magically entitled to cars or college educations.
And what really gets me is that they will try to increase class size like this, and then fight to pass a law that allows teacher merit pay. Try even getting through the day with a 40+ child class, let alone teach anything.
Agree - especially depending on how they do the merit. oftentimes it's just the luck of having a year where kids perform well, or being at a location where students are just "better" due to support at home and/or more natural ability.
However, the merit pay is a big way for schools to try to pay good teachers more and get after "bad teachers" (or make bad teachers so miserable they quit) without having to deal as much with teachers' unions.
the same people who enforce the rules for schooling now? im sure could find a way to fit into their busy schedules to monitor this one new addition he is proposing. the idea that it would cost anything more than a pittance for regulation in this regard is completely false. what your saying is akin to saying a school that makes a new rule banning cellphones would need to hire more teachers and principals etc to monitor it, when in fact the change is so slight and requires such little time to enforce that the people who are already in place to enforce other rules could easily accomodate it.
You're comparing rules at the school level to laws at the state or national level. They're not even close to the same thing.
Here's what I mean- you write this law that say 15 kids per teacher maximum. For the schools with 40+ kids to a classroom this means increased expense because they've got a lot more teachers to hire. However, if there's no regulatory body in place to fine/reprimand/enforce consequences to that school, what is their motivation to hire more teachers? If noone is going to do anything about it, then they won't hire more teachers, and that law that was written, discussed for hours, and voted on in the legislature is completely moot, and an utter waste of resources to boot.
No, but the costs are not up (much), and there's private help in this as well
Food stamps?
Yes
Low-income housing?
Yes
And how are any of those cuts more fair than education?
There's plenty that should be cut before education, but the problem is that most of the bad educational systems are over-bloated and corrupted at an administrative level, and money can't fix that.
Go Canada? (We're not too far behind on the fail train, actually...:-/)
Most of the world is worse or not much better. Everyone knows what grade schools should be like in the end, but almost everyone fails at a conceptual level.
I would say Canada once again benefits from being empty.
US government budgets are slammed right now and some things have to go. What would you cut instead of education? Mental-health services? Police, fire and courts? Sanitation? Water and sewer? Food stamps? Low-income housing? And how are any of those cuts more fair than education?
Food stamps, Low-income housing, Mental-health services- All of these are much less important than education. Education is the most powerful service the government provides to its people.
Only municipal and protection services should come before education, since they are rather necessary for keeping order.
It's depressing that my University is getting rid of two majors soon despite an increase in enrollment...
Aside from the fact that every person who is on government welfare has a case worker who's job it is to monitor that person, so I don't see how any extra people would be required to implement my proposal.
Problem: Teachers have to do more work without more resources.
Solution: Have welfare caseworkers do more work without more resources.
All your flippant answers sound good until the crazy guy who got booted from the institution and the housing project is eating leaves from your bushes, and you can't find a policeman to come take him away.
Only municipal and protection services should come before education, since they are rather necessary for keeping order.
Obviously education is awesome, but its benefits are far in the future. There are also immediate, pressing needs, like keeping people who are currently poor from being driven to crime because they can't eat or have nowhere to live.
I'm not saying the current distribution of resources is perfect - I really don't know. I'm just calling for moderation here. it's very easy to flippantly say that "education is great," while ignoring that basic guarantees of food, water, shelter, justice, etc. are also great - they help prevent a portion of the population from being driven to desperation, thereby causing undesirable instability.
Let me put it this way- if people can't even support for raising taxes in order to fund an education system which desperately needs the money, you're all pretty much ☺☺☺☺ed as a society. So seems like a good idea to try out at least.
Let me put it this way- if people can't even support for raising taxes in order to fund an education system which desperately needs the money, you're all pretty much ☺☺☺☺ed as a society. So seems like a good idea to try out at least.
QTF
The problem is that people are stupid and irrational, and everyone avoids tax hikes like the plague, because you can bet the other party's platform will be: The other guys raised taxes, vote for us!
US government budgets are slammed right now and some things have to go. What would you cut instead of education? Mental-health services? Police, fire and courts? Sanitation? Water and sewer? Food stamps? Low-income housing? And how are any of those cuts more fair than education?
How about the all of the money we spend on the military? Or maybe the money that we waste on U.S. senators? What about the multi millions we spent to bail people out? Why don't we get that back? Honestly we give free ride to some things, but when it comes to the future of our country that goes out the window.
I still say the problems with the educational system are largely due to the administration of the school system. The worst areas share common traits in poor spending. If you want more spent on schools, the government should probably focus on buying books for students instead. Of course, then publishers would just raise prices since the government is paying the tab directly.
I also don't understand the aversion to paying taxes, but that's a separate issue.
your still presenting a false picture. schools have these things called superintendants whose job it is to enforce rules that are already being applied to the school system. are you telling me adding looking after this measure would put them completely overworked and unable to perform their duties? i still posit that the cost to implement the regulation of logics idea would be negligable.
I still say the problems with the educational system are largely due to the administration of the school system. The worst areas share common traits in poor spending. If you want more spent on schools, the government should probably focus on buying books for students instead. Of course, then publishers would just raise prices since the government is paying the tab directly.
I would disagree. I have worked inside school districts and they are stretched thin. A lot of teachers supplement by buying school supplies out of their own pocket. There isn't a lot of room in budgets. The school districts I have worked for have been well funded their levies being passed had to do with this, but the point is that they are stretched thin. I am not saying that some administration being cut wouldn't help, but in most cases it wouldn't do much it might save two to maybe three teachers.
your still presenting a false picture. schools have these things called superintendants whose job it is to enforce rules that are already being applied to the school system. are you telling me adding looking after this measure would put them completely overworked and unable to perform their duties? i still posit that the cost to implement the regulation of logics idea would be negligable.
That's because you're still thinking of this at the school/district level. The Superintendents are still responsible for making sure each school has enough money to cover all its expenses. I'll say it again: what motivation is there to go along with something that's going to increase your expenses if there's noone there to force you to do it? One would hope that morality would be enough, sure, but lets be honest- you don't get to an elected post in this country by having a strong moral fabric.
The problem is that people are stupid and irrational, and everyone avoids tax hikes like the plague, because you can bet the other party's platform will be: The other guys raised taxes, vote for us!
Cutting military is still a better way to go, imo
I don't know that's it's fair to say that people are stupid and irrational for not wanting to pay taxes. You're right about the other party's platform for sure- but that's not a problem with stupidity or rationality as much as it is the shortcomings of a 2-party political system. I agree that the military budget could definitely stand to be cut way back. Just think about how the economy would be right now if 1/2 of our armed forces were being productive in the private sector, and being real consumers.
There needs to be laws about classroom size and budget cuts to education. Filling the budget gap by cutting education is irresponsible and will harm the country in the long run. My own tuition is going up a lot every year because even though the SUNY school system only accounts for a couple percent of the NY state budget, we are taking the biggest budget cuts. I'm paying more and in return they are cutting down the number of classes being offered.
And what really gets me is that they will try to increase class size like this, and then fight to pass a law that allows teacher merit pay. Try even getting through the day with a 40+ child class, let alone teach anything. When class size is that big, a teachers job turns into crowd control. The effect is multiplied by the fact that the districts more effected by this are poor where children don't have good home support. Even the bright children with support would have trouble learning in that kind of environment. It's utterly ridiculous.
Thoughts?
Cutting funds for education does seem to be a common theme, and I really cannot say that I understand the logic behind it. Education is, literally, the most important factor for the long term well being of a society. It seems ridiculous to cut funding for it.
But honestly, I am not convinced that the government is completely interested in people being educated anymore. Our government has started to move down a dark path, it feels like. One in which the government wants citizens to be uneducated, because this makes them less likely to oppose the government to any meaningful degree.
US government budgets are slammed right now and some things have to go. What would you cut instead of education? Mental-health services? Police, fire and courts? Sanitation? Water and sewer? Food stamps? Low-income housing? And how are any of those cuts more fair than education?
I can add something to this. In Hawaii, the children in public schools only go 4 days a week because the state cannot afford to send them the full week. Tourist location or not, Hawaii is one of the poorest states, and our American children is suffering for it.
@ Azerbaijan - The government could easily save some money just by enforcing that people taking government funds to live actually need them. Seriously.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
As has already been said, 40 children/class is unthinkable. No one is getting educated in that system.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
I think it's cute that so many people run to legislation as a solution to problems. More laws means new regulating bodies, new enforcers of those laws, auditers, consultants, you name it. These people all have to be paid.
Don't get me wrong, I think its criminal that education funding gets cut.
The other side of that token, of course, is that the gov. is now shelling out for healthcare. Same old story from the gov- they're robbing Peter to pay Paul. More laws, more control, more government = more cost. You can cut money from elsewhere in the budget or you can raise taxes. End of story.
I fail to see how a new rule mandating classroom size would add any amount of new regulatory bodies.
Because that rule needs to be enforced? Rules/laws don't mean squat without a regulatory body behind them.
So if the tax revenue goes down what do you propose to cut? Granted, no one wants to see education fall by the wayside, but something else has to go. Especially in ravaged cities, like Cleveland, it's even worse.
Charlotte's considered to be in half-decent shape, but even so...
Well, of course, anyone and everyone is welcome to try to pass such laws or ground rules within their locality. I think it'll be a tough sell. Granted, most people acknowledge that smaller class sizes tend to be advantageous to a point, but it's not like I didn't have lectures in college with 300 people or didn't have high school classes with 60 people either.
That's pretty much happening all over the place. Colleges are, in fact, one the easiest things to hit - College is 'optional,' many people go to private schools or don't go to a public school in the state in which they 'grew up.'
We could even have a debate about whether college and/or particular graduate degrees are worth the investment in a variety of scenarios.
Fact is, if you want to be educated and want to go to college, you'll find a way to keep going. Gas gets more expensive but you keep driving your car - same thing. The fact it costs more gives reason to complain, but it's not like we're all magically entitled to cars or college educations.
Agree - especially depending on how they do the merit. oftentimes it's just the luck of having a year where kids perform well, or being at a location where students are just "better" due to support at home and/or more natural ability.
However, the merit pay is a big way for schools to try to pay good teachers more and get after "bad teachers" (or make bad teachers so miserable they quit) without having to deal as much with teachers' unions.
Trade/Sell me your Demonic Attorney!
You're comparing rules at the school level to laws at the state or national level. They're not even close to the same thing.
Here's what I mean- you write this law that say 15 kids per teacher maximum. For the schools with 40+ kids to a classroom this means increased expense because they've got a lot more teachers to hire. However, if there's no regulatory body in place to fine/reprimand/enforce consequences to that school, what is their motivation to hire more teachers? If noone is going to do anything about it, then they won't hire more teachers, and that law that was written, discussed for hours, and voted on in the legislature is completely moot, and an utter waste of resources to boot.
Cost of regulating and enforcing class sizes < 0.1% of Military Spending
Once again, US government fails it's citizens.
Go Canada? (We're not too far behind on the fail train, actually...:-/)
Depends on District
No, but the costs are not up (much), and there's private help in this as well
Yes
Yes
There's plenty that should be cut before education, but the problem is that most of the bad educational systems are over-bloated and corrupted at an administrative level, and money can't fix that.
Most of the world is worse or not much better. Everyone knows what grade schools should be like in the end, but almost everyone fails at a conceptual level.
I would say Canada once again benefits from being empty.
Food stamps, Low-income housing, Mental-health services- All of these are much less important than education. Education is the most powerful service the government provides to its people.
Only municipal and protection services should come before education, since they are rather necessary for keeping order.
It's depressing that my University is getting rid of two majors soon despite an increase in enrollment...
Solution: Have welfare caseworkers do more work without more resources.
All your flippant answers sound good until the crazy guy who got booted from the institution and the housing project is eating leaves from your bushes, and you can't find a policeman to come take him away.
Obviously education is awesome, but its benefits are far in the future. There are also immediate, pressing needs, like keeping people who are currently poor from being driven to crime because they can't eat or have nowhere to live.
I'm not saying the current distribution of resources is perfect - I really don't know. I'm just calling for moderation here. it's very easy to flippantly say that "education is great," while ignoring that basic guarantees of food, water, shelter, justice, etc. are also great - they help prevent a portion of the population from being driven to desperation, thereby causing undesirable instability.
Let me put it this way- if people can't even support for raising taxes in order to fund an education system which desperately needs the money, you're all pretty much ☺☺☺☺ed as a society. So seems like a good idea to try out at least.
QTF
The problem is that people are stupid and irrational, and everyone avoids tax hikes like the plague, because you can bet the other party's platform will be: The other guys raised taxes, vote for us!
Cutting military is still a better way to go, imo
How about the all of the money we spend on the military? Or maybe the money that we waste on U.S. senators? What about the multi millions we spent to bail people out? Why don't we get that back? Honestly we give free ride to some things, but when it comes to the future of our country that goes out the window.
I also don't understand the aversion to paying taxes, but that's a separate issue.
I would disagree. I have worked inside school districts and they are stretched thin. A lot of teachers supplement by buying school supplies out of their own pocket. There isn't a lot of room in budgets. The school districts I have worked for have been well funded their levies being passed had to do with this, but the point is that they are stretched thin. I am not saying that some administration being cut wouldn't help, but in most cases it wouldn't do much it might save two to maybe three teachers.
That's because you're still thinking of this at the school/district level. The Superintendents are still responsible for making sure each school has enough money to cover all its expenses. I'll say it again: what motivation is there to go along with something that's going to increase your expenses if there's noone there to force you to do it? One would hope that morality would be enough, sure, but lets be honest- you don't get to an elected post in this country by having a strong moral fabric.
I don't know that's it's fair to say that people are stupid and irrational for not wanting to pay taxes. You're right about the other party's platform for sure- but that's not a problem with stupidity or rationality as much as it is the shortcomings of a 2-party political system. I agree that the military budget could definitely stand to be cut way back. Just think about how the economy would be right now if 1/2 of our armed forces were being productive in the private sector, and being real consumers.