Ever wonder why there are no $ for education?

[jorian]

A friend of mine who teaches high school in California routinely buys books for some of his students because the district has no budget for new ones. Makes you wonder where all the cash goes.

Here's a couple of pictures which are testament to the power of the lobbyists working for the US military industrial complex. These planes are rotting away in Arizona. Sure there are planes dating back to the Korean war sitting out there but it really makes you wonder if the US is getting value for dollars spent.

[widebody911]

I remember seeing pix somewhere of various miliary planes being broken into pieces out into the open, as part of some arms reduction treaty.

[dtw]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/boneyard.html

[widebody911]

Here we go:

[mikester]

Well, It could help to get some facts straight.

They store them in the AZ desert for a reason.

They store planes not in service that might be called into service and rip apart old planes that nobody uses. They also take parts that are no longer made from old planes and sell them to folks that need them.

Also they have a disarmament destruction schedule that during the 80s at least was monitored by the soviets via satellites. We monitored a similar program of theirs.

The conditions in the AZ desert are good for this storage as it preserves the aircraft better then the rust belt would.

And your friend the teacher in CA might consider that the reason the schools don't have the budget is because (at least in the district I worked in) more than 50% of the students couldn't pass a basic algerbra test and numbers similar would drop out before graduating high school. Attendance is poor and attendance is what money is dependant on.

The first part of the blame should likely go to the parents; but they are busy just trying to put food on the table.

There is an interesting series of articles in the LA times this week...point your friend to it maybe.

[Dantilla]

Davis-Monthon Air Force Base is the only US military installation that makes a profit.

Airplanes are preserved very well in the dry Arizona climate. Many are in mothballed condition, where they can be brought back to active service. And yes, that actually happens.

Truely obsolete aircraft are stripped of valuable parts, where they are sold to both military and civilian customers. I'd be curious to know how much scrap aluminum they sell every year.

My question for our Canadian friend, Jorian, is what would be a better system? For the US Air Force to continue using propellor-driven WWII era equipment, and never upgrade?

[Racerbvd]

Good points, but one other reason schools don't have any money is that the nea uses it for everything but education. Instead of teaching reading, writing & math, they indoctrinate socialist beliefs, teach them that the government should take care of them and those who are successful are bad, take away from those who have. No where in the Constitution does it say that the Government is responsible for education, but the Government is responsible for protection of the USA. Look at not only how much money the nea used to lobby and what they spent it on, not educational either. The last governers election in FL, the nea MORGAGED their state headquarters fund a demacrook trial lawyer running for Governer.

Originally posted by mikester
Well, It could help to get some facts straight.

They store them in the AZ desert for a reason.

They store planes not in service that might be called into service and rip apart old planes that nobody uses. They also take parts that are no longer made from old planes and sell them to folks that need them.

Also they have a disarmament destruction schedule that during the 80s at least was monitored by the soviets via satellites. We monitored a similar program of theirs.

The conditions in the AZ desert are good for this storage as it preserves the aircraft better then the rust belt would.

And your friend the teacher in CA might consider that the reason the schools don't have the budget is because (at least in the district I worked in) more than 50% of the students couldn't pass a basic algerbra test and numbers similar would drop out before graduating high school. Attendance is poor and attendance is what money is dependant on.

The first part of the blame should likely go to the parents; but they are busy just trying to put food on the table.

There is an interesting series of articles in the LA times this week...point your friend to it maybe.

[Dantilla]

About education spending-

There is almost a reverse corelation between spending and results. Some of our largest cities pay the most per student, and have the poorest graduation rates. Check out the stats for Washington DC. In the middle we have smaller rural districts that do far better on average, while spending far less per student. Then check out the graduation rates of private schools, who work on a small fraction per student compared to public schools.

Education and its funding is a complex issue. No easy answers. But just saying to throw more money at a problem is greatly oversimplifying what actually happens in the real world.

[Tishabet]

You would never treat a car like that

[Nathans_Dad]

It took the Californians this long to find the boneyard?? This site has been in existence for decades!!

I suppose our Californian and Canadian friends would prefer we sold all our old aircraft to private citizens in the middle east....

Get real.

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by Dantilla
Davis-Monthon Air Force Base is the only US military installation that makes a profit.

Define "profit"?

Since I work in Federal Government accounting and finance, I am highly skeptical. While it may produce a postive return for that particular program in terms of recycling or some other "dollars in" activity, it likely doesn't makes a profit how the rest of the financial world thinks.

Just want to set the record straight for anyone on the board ready to get up in arms about it. (You know who you are!!)

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Dantilla
About education spending-

There is almost a reverse corelation between spending and results. Some of our largest cities pay the most per student, and have the poorest graduation rates. Check out the stats for Washington DC. In the middle we have smaller rural districts that do far better on average, while spending far less per student. Then check out the graduation rates of private schools, who work on a small fraction per student compared to public schools.

Education and its funding is a complex issue. No easy answers. But just saying to throw more money at a problem is greatly oversimplifying what actually happens in the real world.

Incorrect.

Rural school kids live in relatively better conditions with less poverty than inner school kids.

The private schools get to choose the kids they want.

The amount my local public high school gets per kid is $7,679.
The private school my kids went to cost $10,405.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by Racerbvd
Good points, but one other reason schools don't have any money is that the nea uses it for everything but education. Instead of teaching reading, writing & math, they indoctrinate socialist beliefs, teach them that the government should take care of them and those who are successful are bad, take away from those who have.

You obviously have never taught.

[mikester]

In california we have such a population of low income families whose parents are struggling just to make ends meet that they neglect their children's education. They don't spend the time with them on it which means that the children who don't have their own drive and ambition to do well and need that parental influence (like I did) will fail and their teachers become babysitters. There are kids out there with their own drive and ambition that regardless of their parents input will do well in school (my sister for example).

Anyway, in these cases it simply does not matter how much money you throw into education. Without parental support of a teachers efforts (and good teachers of course) the majority of low income children will likely fail.

The whole thing leads down to the amount of time a parent has to do just that and if they are both (or there is only one to begin with) working two jobs just to keep food on the table then it's very likely the time they are spending on their kids with their homework is a big fat goose egg.

When kids fail parents have failed as well. Here's a fantastic socialist idea that is put out blatantly to get the conservatives rile up. I myself wouldn't even sign on for it...but instead of spending the money in the classroom the money could be spent to help these parents out with their income so THEY can be parents.

If you can't afford to have kids - don't.

[pwd72s]

Well let's see...some time ago, OREGONIAN newspaper ran a front page story on why government worker retirement (including teachers) was such a drain on the state budget. The front page photo showed a "retired" teacher couple lounging by the pool of their retirement community in Sun City (I believe Arizona?) while enjoying their combined retirement pay of $110,000 per year. This did NOT include the medical benefits they are still entitled to until age 65 when Social Security takes over. He was 53, she 51, both had put in their 30 years, retired early. The chairman of our local school board told me that the average teacher cost to the taxpayers of Lebanon, Oregon is now above $70,000 per year. That's salary, combined with retirement, dental, vision, and medical insurance, paid by the taxpayers. These teachers will also retire at slightly above age 50, retirement on the taxpayers tab.
But definitely...it's those damned airplanes robbing the schools of needed funding!

[legion]

My wife taught for a year in a rural school district (Mattoon, IL). The kids were poor, far poorer than their inner-city counterparts. They just don't get the same attention (or funding) because they are not as densely concentrated.

The biggest problem was that the parents didn't care about their children's educations. Very few homework assignments get done, and notes home to parents are unanswered, and parent-teacher conferences are unattended.

[stevepaa]

pwd72s, and your point is what? $70K is with all benefits, so real salary is ~$25K and you want to take away any pension benefits?


But I agree that the planes are not the issue at all.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by legion
My wife taught for a year in a rural school district (Mattoon, IL). The kids were poor, far poorer than their inner-city counterparts. They just don't get the same attention (or funding) because they are not as densely concentrated.

The biggest problem was that the parents didn't care about their children's educations. Very few homework assignments get done, and notes home to parents are unanswered, and parent-teacher conferences are unattended.

Totally agree with second paragraph. And the interest of parents sometimes is not income related.

The rural kids I taught came from farms and ranches. They were realtively poor compared to the suburban kids, but there parents were not working nights or away from home as inner city parents do. To my mind the ranch kids are better off than the inner city poverty kids.

[widgeon13]

"A friend of mine who teaches high school in California routinely buys books for some of his students because the district has no budget for new ones. Makes you wonder where all the cash goes." per jorian

Looks like you have your budgets mixed up, CA can't buy books because they piss away money on other stupid things. It has nothing to do with mothballed planes that are 50 years old. (most of them) The Fed budget is not used for buying public school textbooks.

Being from Canada I suppose you would encourage the US Gov to sell these planes on the world market, maybe to Iran or North Korea so they could use them for passenger planes????? Then we could send that revenue out to CA to buy books for illegal aliens living in LA. Yeah, that the ticket.

When you pay taxes in the US, then you can have some say in how to spend our tax $$, until that time comes, please reserve the comments.

I can deal with critiicism coming from this side of the fence but not from outside of our borders.

[daepp]

The tuition at the private school my children attend is just under $3,600 per year. In the So. Cal public school district we are in the cost to "educate" on child is $7,600.

Contrary to popular belief, we do accept just about anyone who can pay (and some who don't) at any normal range of academic abilities. We have rich snops and poor folks, super high achievers and strugglers. We cannot offer everything a public school has to offer, but we try to accomodate the most amount of children the best we can. And our children become better studnets and better citizens than their public school counterparts.

The common denominator for these kids' success is parents who care and look after them attentivley. The children who succeed have parents that want the best for their children, and this cuts accross all socio-economic levels. Having to write that check every month makes for a real reality check when your kid says they don't want to study etc.

Conversley, taking the responsibilty for educating children away from the parents and putting it on the government has had horrible results. California at one time had the highest test results in the nation - now the public schools can't seem to spend enough money, our protperty taxes ar $7,500 per year, and the lids can't read.

Meanwhile, the CTA and the NEA just lobby for more money - or for stem cell research - or fighting Walmart - or sticking up for the Retail Clerks Union.

Public schools and the unions that support them MAKE ME SICK!