(August 19, 2016 at 2:19 pm)RobertE Wrote:

(August 19, 2016 at 2:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Speaking of being unable to read, the statistic says that 83% cannot read on-level. That doesn't mean they are illiterate. That means that they don't read at the competency level expected of them.

By the way, I notice you still haven't answered my question: Do you know how American schools are funded?

Hopefully, you have the integrity to quit dodging and answer my question. There's a point behind it.

Can I answer like this? Does it have something to do with the fact that schools are funded based on the academic achievement of students from those schools i.e. should the school get a high % of students pass, then they are rewarded and thus able to improve facilities within the school. However, should a school fail, then it is possible that schools will close, teachers will lose their livelihood and therefore, the children will no longer receive an education that every child has a right to. If it is something like that, then it is a shocking system that has been adopted in the United Kingdom and I think France. If I am wrong, then please explain since I am here to learn. So, many thanks in advance for your future explanation. If I don't reply within the next 10 minutes, it is because I am having a nice cup of green tea.

Anyway, please docorrect me if I am wrong since, in spite of what you may think, I am not unreasonable, and I didn't dodge the question since, we in different time zones so, whilst you were going to bed, I was already on my way to work, and yes, I use a computer to work, but I don't access the internet, since it is against my principles.

Don't drink green tea and type.

Some strong stuff.

(August 19, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Bella Morte Wrote:

(August 19, 2016 at 2:19 pm)RobertE Wrote: Can I answer like this? Does it have something to do with the fact that schools are funded based on the academic achievement of students from those schools i.e. should the school get a high % of students pass, then they are rewarded and thus able to improve facilities within the school. However, should a school fail, then it is possible that schools will close, teachers will lose their livelihood and therefore, the children will no longer receive an education that every child has a right to. If it is something like that, then it is a shocking system that has been adopted in the United Kingdom and I think France. If I am wrong, then please explain since I am here to learn. So, many thanks in advance for your future explanation. If I don't reply within the next 10 minutes, it is because I am having a nice cup of green tea.

Anyway, please docorrect me if I am wrong since, in spite of what you may think, I am not unreasonable, and I didn't dodge the question since, we in different time zones so, whilst you were going to bed, I was already on my way to work, and yes, I use a computer to work, but I don't access the internet, since it is against my principles.

Don't drink green tea and type.

Some strong stuff.

Proper green tea, not the hash.....

Schools here are funded by property taxes raised in the district they serve. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have less money to work with, because real estate values are lower in their districts compared to wealthier neighborhoods. What that means is that poor folk here get less of precisely the resource they need most to break the cycle of poverty.

And because minorities in America typically make less than whites, that means they live in disproportionately poorer neighborhoods, meaning they receive comparatively poorer educations, meaning they don't have as much access to higher paying jobs, meaning that they live in ...

(August 19, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Schools here are funded by property taxes raised in the district they serve. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have less money to work with, because real estate values are lower in their districts compared to wealthier neighborhoods. What that means is that poor folk here get less of precisely the resource they need most to break the cycle of poverty.

And because minorities in America typically make less than whites, that means they live in disproportionately poorer neighborhoods, meaning they receive comparatively poorer educations, meaning they don't have as much access to higher paying jobs, meaning that they live in ...

So, pretty much the same in the United Kingdom I believe which really is unfair. Basically, those who have the chance to make it, whilst those who are less fortunate have to make do with what they have been given i.e. an education at a school where there is no hope, and no future because when you put it down on a cv, future employers will have already formed a mental picture of the potential applicant and give it a negative response. It sucks mate, I know. My old school was closed down because of it, and the way the future is heading, more and more schools will be closed down, which means sooner or later, those from backgrounds of poverty, will have to find funding elsewhere to get access to a better school or will have to pass a test in the hope of getting to a better school. One of our failings was the Grammar school. You basically had to pass a test (the 11+) to get into them. If you had no hope and you came from a poor background, then the chances are nil. Anyway, many thanks for the explanation Thump.

(August 19, 2016 at 3:04 pm)RobertE Wrote:

(August 19, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Schools here are funded by property taxes raised in the district they serve. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have less money to work with, because real estate values are lower in their districts compared to wealthier neighborhoods. What that means is that poor folk here get less of precisely the resource they need most to break the cycle of poverty.

And because minorities in America typically make less than whites, that means they live in disproportionately poorer neighborhoods, meaning they receive comparatively poorer educations, meaning they don't have as much access to higher paying jobs, meaning that they live in ...

So, pretty much the same in the United Kingdom I believe which really is unfair. Basically, those who have the chance to make it, whilst those who are less fortunate have to make do with what they have been given i.e. an education at a school where there is no hope, and no future because when you put it down on a cv, future employers will have already formed a mental picture of the potential applicant and give it a negative response. It sucks mate, I know. My old school was closed down because of it, and the way the future is heading, more and more schools will be closed down, which means sooner or later, those from backgrounds of poverty, will have to find funding elsewhere to get access to a better school or will have to pass a test in the hope of getting to a better school. One of our failings was the Grammar school. You basically had to pass a test (the 11+) to get into them. If you had no hope and you came from a poor background, then the chances are nil. Anyway, many thanks for the explanation Thump.

Grammar schools used to help quite a lot of poor kids actually. And I firmly agree with the idea that smarter children should be placed in a different environment, regardless of their financial status.

!define smarter children.

(August 19, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Schools here are funded by property taxes raised in the district they serve. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have less money to work with, because real estate values are lower in their districts compared to wealthier neighborhoods. What that means is that poor folk here get less of precisely the resource they need most to break the cycle of poverty.
And because minorities in America typically make less than whites, that means they live in disproportionately poorer neighborhoods, meaning they receive comparatively poorer educations, meaning they don't have as much access to higher paying jobs, meaning that they live in ...

Quote:Schools here are funded by property taxes raised in the district they serve. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have less money to work with, because real estate values are lower in their districts compared to wealthier neighborhoods. What that means is that poor folk here get less of precisely the resource they need most to break the cycle of poverty.

In the state that I live schools aren't solely funded through just property taxes. The state also kicks in a good portion of the funding, although not as much as is received through property tax levies, but still a good portion. The federal government also kicks in a little money as well. In our school district better than 75% of its funding expenditures go to salaries and benefits packages for district employees. The rest of the 25% goes to various other expenditures. Very little left over for text books, computers, and other learning materials for the students. A few years ago our state offered matching funds for each district that passed a bond issue, which goes to building new schools and for maintenance and upkeep of its buildings. We also had an incident a few years back where a large school district  falsified student records to get more funding from the state. Needless to say the district superintendent and other district officials lost their jobs. Also in our state, if a student leaves the public school system and goes to a charter or private school, the school district which the student lives in still gets the money from property taxes, only the state money follows the student. That means the district is getting money for a student that doesn't attend its schools. Funding variables for schools are different from state to state in this country.

(August 19, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Schools here are funded by property taxes raised in the district they serve. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have less money to work with, because real estate values are lower in their districts compared to wealthier neighborhoods. What that means is that poor folk here get less of precisely the resource they need most to break the cycle of poverty.

And because minorities in America typically make less than whites, that means they live in disproportionately poorer neighborhoods, meaning they receive comparatively poorer educations, meaning they don't have as much access to higher paying jobs, meaning that they live in ...

Yes, I am replying again. Here is a research piece about our secondary school leaving exam which is called a "GCSE." Basically, what you have in a typical secondary modern school are 5 years; 1st to the 5th year. Whatever you have done in the 3rd year will greatly improve your chances (I cannot remember if we needed to pass anything to get into the 4th year, but the 4th year is when the GCSEs start) of getting to a top class. There are three classes normally; the top class, the middle class and then there is the bottom class. Yes, all is fine and dandy, until those dreaded exams come along at the end of the 5th year. You want to pass and you want to pass with flying colours. (I need to get my facts straight on this one) So, whatever you have learned over the two last years, doesn't really enter into it. You could score 100% in all your GCSE exams, and it will not make a blind bit of difference since for each class, the syllabus is completely different in spite of the lessons being the same i.e. basic French from 4th to 5th year, whilst those studying French will be doing something along the lines of translation. Anyway, the best you can hope for is possibly a 'D' which will not get you onto a place for an 'A'-level since you need to have 5 A*-C grades. Basically, you play around in the 3rd year, you have no hope of getting to complete a decent level education because your teacher has already decided what sort of person you are going to be later in life.

http://www.growthmindsetmaths.com/upload...apaper.pdf

(August 19, 2016 at 4:01 pm)A Theist Wrote: In the state that I live schools aren't solely funded through just property taxes. The state also kicks in a good portion of the funding, although not as much as is received through property tax levies, but still a good portion. The federal government also kicks in a little money as well. In our school district better than 75% of its funding expenditures go to salaries and benefits packages for district employees. The rest of the 25% goes to various other expenditures. Very little left over for text books, computers, and other learning materials for the students. A few years ago our state offered matching funds for each district that passed a bond issue, which goes to building new schools and for maintenance and upkeep of its buildings. We also had an incident a few years back where a large school district  falsified student records to get more funding from the state. Needless to say the district superintendent and other district officials lost their jobs. Also in our state, if a student leaves the public school system and goes to a charter or private school, the school district which the student lives in still gets the money from property taxes, only the state money follows the student. That means the district is getting money for a student that doesn't attend its schools. Funding variables for schools are different from state to state in this country.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to reply earlier to this post; I was on my phone and cannot really deal with complex posts in such a limited medium.

You're absolutely right that funding does vary by state, but the fact is that the Federal government contributes less than 10% of the money -- 7% is the number I see most often. At the state level, the money is usually derived from sales taxes, and the state's contribution comes to about 46% (on average) of any particular school's funding. The rest comes from the local district. So you're right that property taxes aren't the only source, but it seems apparent to me that when 47% of your funding is set to such a widely-ranging variable, you're going to get inequities in funding no matter what.

As for how your local district spends its money, that is something for you locals to address; that is exactly the rationale behind having education controlled on the local level. I trust you attend school-board meetings and have your input into the matter? And if not, I trust that you vote for these very important down-ballot elections?

Not knowing where you live, and you having not given any reading material for the other stuff, I can't really address your points about bonds or per-student payouts. Thanks, though, for coloring in greater detail than I provided.

(August 19, 2016 at 4:50 pm)RobertE Wrote:

(August 19, 2016 at 2:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Schools here are funded by property taxes raised in the district they serve. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have less money to work with, because real estate values are lower in their districts compared to wealthier neighborhoods. What that means is that poor folk here get less of precisely the resource they need most to break the cycle of poverty.

And because minorities in America typically make less than whites, that means they live in disproportionately poorer neighborhoods, meaning they receive comparatively poorer educations, meaning they don't have as much access to higher paying jobs, meaning that they live in ...

Yes, I am replying again. Here is a research piece about our secondary school leaving exam which is called a "GCSE." Basically, what you have in a typical secondary modern school are 5 years; 1st to the 5th year. Whatever you have done in the 3rd year will greatly improve your chances (I cannot remember if we needed to pass anything to get into the 4th year, but the 4th year is when the GCSEs start) of getting to a top class. There are three classes normally; the top class, the middle class and then there is the bottom class. Yes, all is fine and dandy, until those dreaded exams come along at the end of the 5th year. You want to pass and you want to pass with flying colours. (I need to get my facts straight on this one) So, whatever you have learned over the two last years, doesn't really enter into it. You could score 100% in all your GCSE exams, and it will not make a blind bit of difference since for each class, the syllabus is completely different in spite of the lessons being the same i.e. basic French from 4th to 5th year, whilst those studying French will be doing something along the lines of translation. Anyway, the best you can hope for is possibly a 'D' which will not get you onto a place for an 'A'-level since you need to have 5 A*-C grades. Basically, you play around in the 3rd year, you have no hope of getting to complete a decent level education because your teacher has already decided what sort of person you are going to be later in life.

http://www.growthmindsetmaths.com/upload...apaper.pdf

Our system here really doesn't have that sort of potential for abuse, because of plentiful junior colleges by which a student who struggled through high school can repair his GPA and prepare himself properly for university. I can see how you'd find your own system a bit obnoxious, but on the other hand I think one good thing to be said for it is that it would seem to encourage accountability.

In stark contrast, here in America a big problem is the escalator effect -- teachers unwilling to hold students back a year because of parental pressure, and school systems (ours are locally-controlled, as you may have gathered from my reply to A Theist) strapped for money not wishing to fall short of national standards nor willing to spend money it might not have on a struggling student simply moving them up through the grades without ensuring that the education has actually been imparted.

Your earlier point about parental involvement is very apt, and I'm sorry I haven't made mention of it before. My ex- and I raised our son in a school district which had above-average (by American standards) ratings, but I've always been of the mind that the most important teachers a child has are his or her parents. I put that ethos into action with my son in many ways small and large -- always talking to him as an adult, reading with him every night I had him (three nights a week, per custody agreement), inculcating the principles of critical thinking. She read to him as well. Jake and I would go hiking or trail-biking, and while so doing would talk about the nature we were observing (which leads, of course, to evolution, astronomy, and all sorts of science, which I'm interested in and somewhat well-versed in; what I didn't know, we'd look up at home).

By the time he was entering high school, he competed for and earnt a spot in a so-called "magnet" school, where the curriculum was much more challenging. Through good grades there, and community service, he recently completed his first year at university without any of us spending a dime (can you tell I'm proud?) And while we weren't penniless, ours was and is a a lower-middle class family. But we had enough money to have the leisure time to pursue the outdoor activities which spark a child's curiosity, enough money to have the Internet at home, enough money so that he could think about those sorts of things rather than where his next meal might come from or would he get beat up for shabby clothes again?

Point being, you're right that parental involvement can make a difference. However, when the parent doesn't have the time for such involvement (working two jobs to make ends meet, which is not uncommon in ghettoes here) or has to work a contrary schedule to keep the job they have, it devolves upon the school district to do something to prevent the installation of a permanent underclass. I think American schools fall short of that. We can do better, and we really have to.

I'd love to see greater federal American investment in education, as opposed to, say, exporting TNT aerially. In my mind, investing in education is very much investing in national security.