Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Well, now we know how Obamacare is going to be paid for...


Recommended Posts

I am a county employee but I also believe that public employees work for the citizens not the other way around.

 

I am a state employee (in Nevada) and I have seen that attitude taken to extremes. There are citizens in my area who, if they had their way, my colleagues and I would work seven days a week for minimum wage with no benefits, and be grateful for the privilege. They complain about pensions - yet almost 14 percent of my salary goes toward mine. It's hardly a gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea behind the employer taking the lion share of the retirement costs is that they can pay less towards the employees salary than they would without the pension coverage. I have no problem with stopping pensions provided that we apply raises to the employees to account for the reduction of benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

California pays more per capita on schools than most states.  

 

 

And your point is?

 

While I agree that CA has horribly mismanaged education spending, your quote is a dead fish and not really relevant.  Shouldn't one of the most populous states also have the highest per capita spending on schools?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is?

 

While I agree that CA has horribly mismanaged education spending, your quote is a dead fish and not really relevant.  Shouldn't one of the most populous states also have the highest per capita spending on schools?  

 

My point was that spending more money when are costs per student are already in the top ten doesn't make a lot of sense.  I'm sure you knew what my point was but decided to be a dick about it anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is?

 

While I agree that CA has horribly mismanaged education spending, your quote is a dead fish and not really relevant.  Shouldn't one of the most populous states also have the highest per capita spending on schools?  

Why should a more populous state have a higher per capita spending on schools? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should a more populous state have a higher per capita spending on schools? 

 

 

Because more people = greater expense for schools, especially in population clusters.  The more kids there are in an area, the more schools, teachers, and education materials are needed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that spending more money when are costs per student are already in the top ten doesn't make a lot of sense.  I'm sure you knew what my point was but decided to be a dick about it anyways.

 

 

So yeah, I'm the dick even though I had to draw you out to prove your point.  I can live with that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think quite a few studies have shown there's little to no correlation between education spending and test scores/graduation rates.  No amount of money spent on education will make up for what kids don't get at home and that's too many parents who don't get involved.   

 

I agree with you, especially the latter part.  So much of it falls on parents.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You first. It makes no sense at all that it would cost more per capita in a larger population. It has a higher gross cost but why would the per capita cost be higher. 

 

 

So neither of us has anything other than our best guess.  I'm sticking with mine then.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. I have logic and common sense on my side. You, you've got nuthin' but your best guess.

 

More people in the population does not raise the cost per student to provide education. More people in the population means more people contributing to to costs of education. So while the school budget may be significantly higher in a large population, it's not significantly higher per capita.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. I have logic and common sense on my side. You, you've got nuthin' but your best guess.

 

More people in the population does not raise the cost per student to provide education. More people in the population means more people contributing to to costs of education. So while the school budget may be significantly higher in a large population, it's not significantly higher per capita.

 

 

From a purely business standpoint it makes sense, but a school isn't a business.  It isn't about producing more goods at a cheaper price.  For instance: let's compare a school with 100 students to a school with 1000 students.  The former school can easily be broken down into six classrooms.  The latter school will need about 50 classrooms.  With those extra classrooms come extra expenses: more teachers, more money spent on keeping them clean and maintenance, more money spent on electricity and gas, more money spent bussing the kids to and from school, etc.  Many of those costs can't be defrayed by bulk spending. 

 

So yeah, common sense.  It's on my side too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're arguing increase cost with increased cost per capita and that doesn't jive. It doesn't even jive with a higher cost per pupil. You're ignoring per capita. The bigger the population the more contributors to the pool. By the way, larger school populations have higher pupil to teacher ratios so the cost of that teacher is more efficient not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're arguing increase cost with increased cost per capita and that doesn't jive. It doesn't even jive with a higher cost per pupil. You're ignoring per capita. The bigger the population the more contributors to the pool. By the way, larger school populations have higher pupil to teacher ratios so the cost of that teacher is more efficient not less.

 

 

And with those higher pupil-to-teacher ratios come...more problems because the students get les individual time with teachers.  Which leads to more expenses - detention, remedial school, attendance enforcement.  Then kids drop out (high school, of course) which leads to less money from the government.  And yes, a bigger population means more contributors but that doesn't change the cost.  However, I can see how an argument can be made of that lowering the per capita cost. 

 

Further...let's look at the school bus issue.  The first school can get by with two or maybe three busses, let's say three.  Around 30 students per bus.  If we use the 30 students per bus for the second school, they'll need 33 busses.  Those busses need gas, drivers, upkeep, and maintenance.  Again, extra expenses per student. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again Glen, you are ignoring the per capita part. Higher population does equal a larger revenue pool thus the per capita inclusion. Even if you interpret per capita as per student your argument is still wrong. The increase budget does not mean an increase cost per student. There are probably various thresholds that would cause nominal per student cost increases due to efficiency. Such as a student population that required an additional teacher but was not enough to have efficient ratios. Typically however, schools will increase the class sizes until that number increases (like my wife's school did to her increasing her class from 25 to 34) This has been a per capita argument from the beginning. No one has argued that the budget would not be higher in larger populations which seems to the crux of your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

untitled11.png

Is SAT score the key statistic in measuring public school success? Any data on graduation rate? Percentage of graduates that are accepted in higher education? 

 

And what drives the cost increase? Probably salaries for all employees in the system going from shameful to livable. Are these increases any more dramatic than other government sectors increases in the same 40 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...