[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-11, 17:03, said:

How about this:

• Establish a statewide level of funding per student per year
  
• Provide that funding to the parents and/or student via a voucher
  
• Allow the parents and/or student to select the educational vehicle to which the funding is disbursed (any educational vehicle that can show a minimum percentage of students passing a national competency test)
  
• At the Federal level, establish a nation wide competency test in base core subjects
  
• Require any institution receiving federal funding to accept the passing of the competency test as equivalent to a high school diploma

Where to begin:

1. Voucher systems started as a more politically correct version of the segregation academies that sprung up all across the South. They aren't much better today.
2. "School choice" sounds really good until you realize that most parents aren't optimizing based on the quality of the education that their children receive, rather they are trying to perpetuate socio and religious norms
3. Seems that we have an awful lot of evidence that the easiest way for schools to make sure that the score well on national competency tests is a combination of cheating on the tests and refusing to admit at risk students.
4. I am all for national education standards, however, last time I checked people didn't seem to much like the common core.
5. Seems that we already have the GED.

[kenberg]

Elianna, on 2017-January-11, 17:48, said:

Read https://www.amazon.c...erica+s+schools

One of the astonishing (or perhaps not so astonishing) facts is that many poor communities actually set HIGHER property tax rates to fund education than richer communities, but it still leads to lower amounts of money per student.

For example, take two high school districts. One is in a richer neighborhood that has much more expensive homes and the other has cheaper homes (and considered a "worse neighborhood"). If each home in the "rich" district was valued at 2.4+ million dollars (the median home price in, say, Palo Alto) and taxed at r%, I leave it to you to work out what tax rate needs to be set for homes in the cheaper area (let's say East Palo Alto - a separate school district whose median home price is 730,000).

And if you think that this could be overcome by having more homes in the poorer neighborhoods, remember that with more homes come more children (and therefore students) and so that doesn't help the amount of money a public school gets per student.

So yes, people could vote to raise property tax. But by your reasoning - it's poor people's fault that they're not at the same school funding level as rich people - they should raise property taxes to be more than three times the rate!

This does not match up with some things I thought I knew, so I checked a bit.

There is data from Maryland at https://conduitstree...ng-per-student/

The counties that I have the longest experience with are Prince Georges (the Univ of Md is there), Montgomery, and Howard. Howard and Montgomery are significantly wealthier than PG. Local support (via property taxes) in PG is far less that the support in Mont. and Howard. State and Federal help bring PG and Mont together, Howard spends more. Howard and Mont are high performers, PG does badly..

Back when Calif had Proposition whatever iit was to cap the property tax rate, PG passed similar. law. I believe they have recently, with great effort,by some, partially gotten around that.

I have to run but I will try to check this more thoroughly later.

[ldrews]

Quote

So yes, people could vote to raise property tax. But by your reasoning - it's poor people's fault that they're not at the same school funding level as rich people - they should raise property taxes to be more than three times the rate!

I make no such reasoning. I do not place fault on anyone. I have simply described the current mechanism for funding.

What is your solution to the funding inequality? Do you tax everyone in the state more and give the additional tax money to the underfunded schools? But then wouldn't you be raising taxes on the residents of the poorer districts disproportionately? Or would you institute a more progressive tax on the wealthier residents in order to subsidize the poorer? How is that fair? And if you raise taxes on the affluent citizens, don't you encourage them to move elsewhere, taking all of their tax revenue with them? (see California)

I moved my family and business out of California many years ago for that very reason.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-January-11, 17:35, said:

Per capita is distorted. Income distribution is the most skewed since 1929. Easy money has been a boom for the wealthy.

I don't get it. You understand this yet you support a wealthy capitalist who want to reduce taxes even further on the rich and skew the income distribution even more. What gives?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-January-11, 19:28, said:

And if you raise taxes on the affluent citizens, don't you encourage them to move elsewhere, taking all of their tax revenue with them? (see California)

I moved my family and business out of California many years ago for that very reason.

This would only apply to state taxes - if the taxes were applied on a national basis there would be no where to move that would be different. Perhaps each state should impose a move tariff on people fleeing the state for lower taxes.

[ldrews]

Quote

This would only apply to state taxes - if the taxes were applied on a national basis there would be no where to move that would be different. Perhaps each state should impose a move tariff on people fleeing the state for lower taxes.

Isn't education (and funding) a state right, per the Constitution? So national funding would require an amendment to the Constitution?

Wow, a state exit tax! Pretty sure that doesn't pass constitutional muster either.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-11, 19:28, said:

I make no such reasoning. I do not place fault on anyone. I have simply described the current mechanism for funding.

What is your solution to the funding inequality? Do you tax everyone in the state more and give the additional tax money to the underfunded schools? But then wouldn't you be raising taxes on the residents of the poorer districts disproportionately? Or would you institute a more progressive tax on the wealthier residents in order to subsidize the poorer? How is that fair? And if you raise taxes on the affluent citizens, don't you encourage them to move elsewhere, taking all of their tax revenue with them? (see California)

I strongly believe that that there is a minimum funding level that all students need to receive.
Some minor adjustments would probably be necessary to compensate for differences in the cost of living per state, special needs, and the like.

Furthermore, I believe that this needs to be done on a federal level.
You shouldn't be *****ed over for life because you are unlucky enough to be born in the South.

On the funding side, I strongly believe in progressive taxation.

Yes, there will be some people who flee the country as you have.

C'est le vie. If they love their filthy lucre more than they care about the country, then we're better off with out them.
(More seriously, having ex pats spending their income in the developing world is probably a good thing for the international economy)

Just don't try lecturing me about life in America when you cut and run...

[kenberg]

I favor strong financial support of schools. We also need to take seriously the argument that that's not the whole story.

I posted the following for spending

https://conduitstree...ng-per-student/

Here is a list of results.

https://k12.niche.co...all/s/maryland/

There are 24 districts

Howard, Montgomery, Fredeerick and Carroll come in first, second, third and fourth for results. They come in fifth, seventh, twentieth and seventeenth in spending.

Worchester comes in first in spending, sixth in results. More dramatically, Baltimore is second in spending, last in results. Prince George's is sixth in spending, 21st out of 24 in results.

As always, I only trust data so far. Details matter. But this seems adequate to show that funding is not the whole story. If we are going to address the critical issue of educating the kids, surely it will require money. But we also need to make sure we get a good return on what is spent.

[Zelandakh]

If you are going to use test results to produce league tables for schools then it really needs to be done properly. To assess a school I would suggest a comparison with their final results against the results of their final tests in the previous school would be appropriate. If this were done it might also help to avoid the issue of schools refusing to take low-performing pupils because these would negatively impact their league position.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2017-January-12, 07:48, said:

As always, I only trust data so far. Details matter. But this seems adequate to show that funding is not the whole story. If we are going to address the critical issue of educating the kids, surely it will require money. But we also need to make sure we get a good return on what is spent.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a family with two parents, both of whom were actively engaged with me, read to me every day, and instilled a life long love of learning.

I am guessing that educating me to some basic level of academic proficiency would be a HELL of a lot cheaper than trying to do the same for a kid who had a single parent working a minimum wage job who didn't have the time or the energy to provide the same benefits to their children.

The entire notion that it is going to cost the same to educate kids in communities that have been devastated by years of neglect is absolutely ridiculous.

And, once more, when you are doing comparisons across counties you need to factor in issues like how much of that money is being spent of school lunches, guidance and heath, and other such welfare programs.

[jogs]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-11, 19:29, said:

I don't get it. You understand this yet you support a wealthy capitalist who want to reduce taxes even further on the rich and skew the income distribution even more. What gives?

That's because you have never been willing to read the views of others who don't follow the hard progressive left line.

I favor eliminating or limiting most deductions(on income taxes). Buffett pays only 16-18% taxes on his income. He should be paying closer to 35%. Trump favors eliminating accrued interest. Maybe on any given year there should be a cap on total deductions. This cap may be $500,000 or $1 million. I love inverse tiered pricing for most utilities. Public transportation should be free. There are many ways to help the poor or working poor without increasing their wages.

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-January-12, 08:20, said:

That's because you have never been willing to read the views of others who don't follow the hard progressive left line.

I favor eliminating or limiting most deductions(on income taxes). Buffett pays only 16-18% taxes on his income. He should be paying closer to 35%. Trump favors eliminating accrued interest. Maybe on any given year there should be a cap on total deductions. This cap may be $500,000 or $1 million. I love inverse tiered pricing for most utilities. Public transportation should be free. There are many ways to help the poor or working poor without increasing their wages.

That still doesn't explain your support for the demagogue Trump.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-12, 08:16, said:

I was lucky enough to grow up in a family with two parents, both of whom were actively engaged with me, read to me every life, and instilled a life long love of learning.

I am guessing that educating me to some basic level of academic proficiency would be a HELL of a lot cheaper than trying to do the same for a kid who had a single parent working a minimum wage job who didn't have the time or the energy to provide the same benefits to their children.

The entire notion that it is going to cost the same to educate kids in communities that have been devastated by years of neglect is absolutely ridiculous.

And, once more, when you are doing comparisons across counties you need to factor in issues like how much of that money is being spent of school lunches, guidance and heath, and other such welfare programs.

You might or might not be surprised to hear that I agree, or at least largely agree, with this. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that some of the posts were suggesting that if we could simply equalize funding we would be well on the way to solving the problem. I think a much broader and very open minded view is needed.

Your first sentence carries a serious challenge. Some families do not project a love of learning. True enough. Also some teachers don't. My own experiences make this undeniable. Providing an environment that offers choices is a challenge. Not all will make the choices that we might hope for, but choices should be there. I long ago suggested, perhaps more metaphorically than literally, that kids in adverse circumstances should be issued a bicycle, and it should be a capital offense to steal it from him. The idea is for a kid to see that there are options other than those that are directly in front of him.

I also regard my own childhood as lucky. I was given great opportunity to explore. I don't mean a trip to Europe, I mean a chance to get out on my bike and see what I liked and what I didn't like.

Some kids are from circumstances that are very difficult to overcome. Schools cannot do it all, much will depend on the choices a young person makes. But some good choices should be available. And guidance. And a decent breakfast.

[y66]

Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire, channeling my favorite mad scientist of bridge, explains his admiration for Donald J. Trump. [NYT Opinion]

Quote

I ask him if Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk are similar.

“I’m going to get in trouble, but they are, actually. They’re both grandmaster-level salespeople and these very much larger-than-life figures.”

He recalls a story from his and Mr. Musk’s PayPal days, when Mr. Musk joined the engineering team’s poker game and bet everything on every hand, admitting only afterward that it was his first time playing poker. Then there was the time they were driving in Mr. Musk’s McLaren F1 car, “the fastest car in the world.” It hit an embankment, achieved liftoff, made a 360-degree horizontal turn, crashed and was destroyed.

“It was a miracle neither of us were hurt,” Mr. Thiel says. “I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, which is not advisable. Elon’s first comment was, ‘Wow, Peter, that was really intense.’ And then it was: ‘You know, I had read all these stories about people who made money and bought sports cars and crashed them. But I knew it would never happen to me, so I didn’t get any insurance.’ And then we hitchhiked the rest of the way to the meeting.”

Good read. Smart guy. Definitely more optimistic and tolerant of risk than I am. I will concede that Trump is less scary and more real in some ways than many of his rivals but I'm not for taking the whole country for a spin with Trump at the wheel even if this is the shortest path to the future Theil believes in.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2017-January-12, 09:47, said:

Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire, channeling my favorite mad scientist of bridge, explains his admiration for Donald J. Trump. [NYT Opinion]


Good read. Smart guy. Definitely more optimistic and tolerant of risk than I am. I will concede that Trump is less scary and more real in some ways than many of his rivals but I'm not for taking the whole country for a spin with Trump at the wheel even if this is the shortest path to the future Theil believes in.

This is a great article. I particularly liked the extensive comparison of Trump with Hulk Hogan. It seems more than a little accurate. We are embarking on a strange journey.


The academic in me notes a typo; It's "Do not go gentle into than good night." "gentle", not "gently". Which of course is really just an excuse to link to the poem:
https://www.poets.or...ntle-good-night

[kenberg]

I have a question. The hacking of the DNC. I realized that I don't really know just what was released as a result of the hacking. The DNC favored Clinton over Sanders and acted on this favoritism.

Never mind for a moment all the controversy over Putin/Assange coordination. And skip the fake news stuff for the moment. I am trying to straighten out my head as to just what was revealed by the hacking. Podesta said something stupid, I don't recall what, about the Pope.

I have thought from the beginning that the most important thing is that the Russians were able to do it. Regardless of what they got, that's not good. But I realized that I did not really know just what it was that they got. The biggest item was the favoritism toward Clinton over Sanders, is that right?

[Elianna]

kenberg, on 2017-January-12, 09:35, said:

You might or might not be surprised to hear that I agree, or at least largely agree, with this. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that some of the posts were suggesting that if we could simply equalize funding we would be well on the way to solving the problem. I think a much broader and very open minded view is needed.

...

Some kids are from circumstances that are very difficult to overcome. Schools cannot do it all, much will depend on the choices a young person makes. But some good choices should be available. And guidance. And a decent breakfast.

My point wasn't that if schools were funded equally everything would be sunshine and roses. It was that IF funding equally was the goal, then relying ONLY on property taxes of the area of the school is ridiculous. I also wanted to refute the claim that all that is needed to equalize funding of schools is for poor areas to raise property taxes and show why that won't work.

From your table it seems that the state of MD supplements per student to attempt to bring all counties up to some level, but does not attempt to equalize. CA does the same (although it operates on a per district rather than per county basis) but our minimum is lower than yours. According to the state of CA for '16-'17 it is about 10,600, but I really thought it was $9,000 because the district is supposed to pay us the minimum per student and that's what we get so perhaps those numbers are different for different grade levels? But anyway, it's still about $2200 less than your lowest county.

[Zelandakh]

Sometimes wiki can be a decent source Ken...

[ldrews]

hrothgar,

Do you agree that, as matters currently stand, education is a matter for the states per the current Constitution of the United States? That since it is not an enumerated Federal responsibility, that education is reserved for the states?

That, therefore, to implement federal funding of education would require an amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-12, 18:37, said:

hrothgar,

Do you agree that, as matters currently stand, education is a matter for the states per the current Constitution of the United States? That since it is not an enumerated Federal responsibility, that education is reserved for the states?

That, therefore, to implement federal funding of education would require an amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

No

(And given that the Federal government provides about 10% of funding for K-12 education, I think that my beliefs are pretty well grounded)