Back to the DC public schools... not enough money?

Politics International Politics
1

Anyone want to bleat about underfunding of public schools? haha

[quote]The District of Columbia deserves the gratitude of taxpayers everywhere for giving the nation a lesson in governance. It is proving that spending more on public schools is a waste of money. That was the unintended lesson of the press conference District Mayor Adrian Fenty called this week to announce that half the District’s public schools would not have proper textbooks for opening day and half the school buildings would not have air conditioning. This is not because the District has been frugal. Its public schools wallow in cash.

Their profligacy is made possible, in part, by federal taxpayers, who according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), provided a subsidy of $2,383 per student enrolled in the District’s primary and secondary schools in the 2003-2004 school year. That was more than the per-pupil subsidy for any state and almost three times the national average of $864. The District also spent a lot of its own money, racking up a combined local and federal total of $15,414 in spending per pupil in average daily attendance. That, too, was more than any state, nearly doubling the national average of $8,899.

Given that half the District’s school buildings don’t have working air-conditioners and half the schools won’t have their books on time, you might be tempted to guess that the District spends more money on, say, teachers than on facilities and administrators. Don’t give in to the temptation. In 2003-2004, says NCES, the District spent $1,869 per student on "capital outlays." That was money “for the acquisition of land and buildings; building construction, remodeling and additions; the initial installation or extension of service systems and other built-in equipment; and site improvement.” Additionally, the District spent $1,464 per student on "operation and maintenance." This included “salary, benefits, supplies, and contractual fees for supervision of operations and maintenance, operating buildings (heating, lighting, ventilating, repair and replacement), care and upkeep of grounds and equipment, vehicle operations and maintenance (other than student transportation), security, and other operations and maintenance services.”

That means the District spent a total of $3,333 per student to make sure there were enough new and remodeled buildings and sufficient maintenance staff to keep the air-conditioners going. Of all the states, only frozen Alaska approached this level of spending for facilities and maintenance, spending a combined $3,220 per student on these two categories.

Now, you might be tempted to think that the District spent so much buying and maintaining buildings that it could not afford the crack administrators needed to order textbooks. Don’t give in to that temptation, either.

The District spent $662 per student on “school administration” and $302 per student on “general administration.” The former included the “salary, benefits, supplies, and contractual fees” for “the office of the principal, full-time department chairpersons and graduation expenses,” the latter included the money for the “boards of education staff and executive administration.”

That means the District spent $994 per student for two layers of administrators who were supposed to make sure the books arrived on time. Only two states, New Jersey ($1,049) and Vermont ($1,045) spent more.

Now, you might be tempted to think that the District spent so much on buildings, maintenance and administrators that it could not afford teachers. It also would be a mistake to surrender to this temptation.

The District spent $664 per student on "instructional staff," a category that includes not only old-fashioned classroom teachers, but also “expenditures for curriculum development, staff training, libraries, and media and computer centers.”

Compared to the money spent on buildings, maintenance and administrators, this $664 might seem paltry. Forget that temptation, too. The District spent more per pupil on “instructional staff” than any state.

In return, however, it got less “instruction” than any state.

In the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered to eighth-graders, only 12 percent of District students scored grade-level proficient in reading and only 7 percent scored grade-level proficient in math. No state did that poorly. The District spent the most money and got the worst results.

But when District kids are sweating in their classrooms later this month waiting for their books to arrive, at least they will have the satisfaction of knowing they attend the most expensive public schools in the United States. [/quote]

townhall.com/columnists/Tere … ments=true

For all the big public school supporters out there, what have you got to say about this?

Love and kisses

Freddie

2

i think we’ve gone over this enough. if people don’t want to get involved in how their tax money is being spent, then huogai for them. but i just finished an interesting book on neuroplasticity and raising IQ if you’d like to discuss that.

3

How about adding the myth of self-esteem to the one that schools need more money?

[quote]Once upon a time – a time you probably don’t remember if you’re younger than 30 – American schools sought to teach children self-control, personal responsibility, and respect for others, especially adults. Students were corrected when they made mistakes and reprimanded when they slacked off or talked back. Most unfathomable to the current education establishment, teachers assessed students on qualities such as “gets along well with others” – and some children actually flunked. In the eyes of schoolteachers and parents, shaping kids into productive and responsible citizens was more important than protecting their egos. Then, sometime in the 1970s, schools began to embrace the peculiar notion that kids should never be criticized or feel self-doubt. The “self-esteem” movement was born – and ushered in a generation of kids who think they can do no wrong.

In her new book, “Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled – And More Miserable than Ever Before,” Dr. Jean Twenge documents the spectacular failure of the self-esteem movement, from its birth in the 1970s to the present. Despite enthusiastic predictions to the contrary, raising kids’ self-esteem does not make them more successful or productive. It does, however, train them to always feel good about themselves, even when they do bad things. Twenge makes clear the difference between self-esteem and self-respect. Self-respect – a value taught to older generations – is achieved gradually, by behaving morally and accomplishing things. Self-esteem is an entitlement. As Twenge explains, “most [self-esteem] programs encourage children to feel good about themselves for no particular reason.”

Is that really such a bad thing? According to Twenge, who spent years researching the subject, the answer is yes.
Numerous studies show basically no relationship between high self-esteem and academic achievement, strong work ethic, or harmonious relationships with others.
In fact, Twenge’s research suggests that the self-esteem movement has wreaked havoc on schools. Instead of teaching children to learn from their mistakes, “There has been a movement against ‘criticizing’ children too much…One popular method tells teachers not to correct students’ spelling or grammar, arguing that kids should be ‘independent spellers’ so they can be treated as ‘individuals.’”

Elementary school students spend hours creating “All About Me” projects and reading books titled “Everyone Is Special,” but less time learning basic skills. Unsurprisingly, Twenge notes, “American children scored very highly when asked how good they were at math. Of course, their actual math performance is merely mediocre, with other countries’ youth routinely outranking American children.” Grade inflation is appallingly high, as schools pass out good grades in order to avoid bruised egos. As Twenge reports, “In 2004, 48 percent of American college freshmen – almost half – reported earning an A average in high school, compared to only 18 percent in 1968, even though SAT scores decreased over the same period.” Students often demand good grades for substandard work, and their parents act as reinforcements: “Teachers described parents who specified that their children were not to be corrected or ‘emotionally upset,’ who argued incessantly about grades, and even one father who…challenged a teacher to a fistfight.”

Of course, children have no motivation to work harder when their schools outlaw competition and celebrate mediocrity. Many schools now refuse to publish the honor roll, since it might hurt the self-esteem of students who didn’t make the grade. According to the touchy-feely pop psychology of the current education establishment, recognizing high achievers is unnecessary and cruel. Twenge offers an example: “11-year-old Kayla was invited to the math class pizza party, even though she managed only a barely passing 71. The pizza parties used to be only for children who made A’s, but in recent years the school has invited every child who simply passed.”

While the self-esteem movement hasn’t made children any smarter, it has made them more self-centered, manipulative, and indulgent. Cheating in schools is on the rise, with 74 percent of high school students admitting to cheating in 2002. The link to the self-esteem movement is clear: if everyone deserves to feel good regardless of how they behave, why should a student feel bad about stealing a copy of the final exam? It doesn’t mean he’s a bad person. The self-esteem movement has indeed had enormous effects on children born since the 1970s – and almost none of them are good. The California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility spent a quarter-billion dollars trying to raise Californians’ self-esteem, only to find that it had no effect on teen pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, or chronic welfare dependency. On the other hand, people with high self-esteem tend to be unwilling to take responsibility for their own failures and bad behavior.

There is one personality trait that is definitely linked to achievement, and that is self-control. Although “discipline” and “obedience” have become dirty words in the education establishment, people with high levels of self-control are the most likely to succeed. They earn higher grades and finish more years of education, and they’re less likely to abuse drugs or have children out of wedlock. As Twenge says, “Self-control predicts all of those things researchers had hoped self-esteem would, but hasn’t.”

This short column cannot do justice to Twenge’s meticulously researched and revealing book. However, it’s a must-read for parents and teachers who hope to unravel the myth of self-esteem. [/quote]

townhall.com/columnists/Ashl … ments=true

4

[quote=“fred smith”]How about adding the myth of self-esteem to the one that schools need more money?

And numerous studies show that it does make a difference.

link

[quote]BROOKOVER, THOMAS, AND PATTERSON, 1985–Found there was a significant relationship between self-concept and academic achievement.

COOPERSMITH, 1965–Reported that children’s self-concept predicted a child’s ability to read in first grade at least as well as measures of intelligence.

WYLIE, 1979–There is considerable empirical evidence that self-concept predicts and influences achievement in school, from the primary grades through undergraduate education.

HOLLY, 1987–Compiled a summary of all the studies and indicated that most supported the idea that self-esteem was more likely the result than the cause of academic achievement. However, he acknowledged that a certain level of self-esteem is required in order for a student to achieve academic success and that self-esteem and achievement go hand in hand. They feed each other.

COVINGTON, 1989–As the level of self-esteem increases, so do achievement scores; and as self-esteem decreases, so does achievement. Furthermore, and perhaps most important, he concluded that self-esteem can be modified through direct instruction and that such instruction can lead to achievement gains.

WALZ & BLEUER, 1992–Factors which are important to school success, such as positive feelings about self, absenteeism, and school retention, are affected by successful school self-esteem programs.

SCHEIRER & KRANT, 1979–Reported on several studies that have demonstrated that educational achievements are influenced by self-concept. [/quote]
self-esteem-nase.org/research.shtml

Sure, schools should be primarily in the business of teaching academic subjects and not molly-coddling screwed-up misfits, but if you’re suggesting that there’s no connection between self-esteem and accomplishment, I think most people would disagree. I’m not suggesting any particular course of action as a result; just correcting your delusion.

5

I think that in some cases the “self-esteem” that you are referring to is the “self-respect” listed by the author.

Interesting though that this issue would be of such importance to you to warrant a comment. Wonder why that would be…

I think that you are a dedicated and intelligent poster. You should feel good about yourself. YOU are somebody special!

6

[quote=“fred smith”]I think that in some cases the “self-esteem” that you are referring to is the “self-respect” listed by the author.

Interesting though that this issue would be of such importance to you to warrant a comment. Wonder why that would be…

I think that you are a dedicated and intelligent poster. You should feel good about yourself. YOU are somebody special![/quote]

Here comes Mighty Mouse aka Fred Smith to save the day!!! [cue Mighty Mouse theme]

7

This from a man who titles a thread “Surrender to Gluttony.” :laughing:

8

I believe the founding father of the ‘self-esteem’ movement was the right-hand man of Ayn Rand: Nathaniel Brandon. Their idea was that self-esteem is important, but you get it because you work hard for something and so feel pride in yourself for the effort/accomplishment. This is in contrast to the idea that you feel pride in yourself for just existing, regardless of your standards and behavior. I think the idea has become twisted over the years to the detriment of the students. I want my child to feel she has value everyday, but when she does something negative, say, intentionally hurting someone else, she should not feel pride/self-esteem- she should feel shame and guilt. When she acts in the world according to positive values that first she learns from me (which later she may modify based on her own experiences), she should feel self-esteem/pride.

PS Little bit of trivia: Ron Paul has a child named Rand and often quotes Ayn Rand in his answers.

9

Thank you Fred. That’s very kind coming from someone who was Child of the Month at Taipei American School. :notworthy:

10

I’ll get back to you on Aug 31st.