Re: A policy that all Republicans can get behind

Jeffrey Turner <jturner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> Jeffrey Turner <jturner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>School funding is skyrocketing, well above inflation and other
>>>>mandates.
>>>>
>>>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_56/ai_n13675424
>>>>
>>>>The truth is that, between 1960 and 2000, after-inflation education
>>>>spending more than tripled.  Harvard's Caroline Hoxby has found that
>>>>real, inflation-adjusted spending grew from $5,900 per pupil in 1982
>>>>to more than $9,200 in 2000. In its most recent figures, the
>>>>Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates
>>>>that current U.S. education spending is over $10,800 per child.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, some may be surprised to learn that the U.S. ranks at the top
>>>>of the international charts when it comes to education spending. In
>>>>2000, the most recent year for which international comparisons are
>>>>available, the OECD found that the United States spent significantly
>>>>more per child than any other industrial democracy, including those
>>>>famous for their generous social programs. In primary education, on a
>>>>per-pupil basis, the United States spent 66 percent more than Germany,
>>>>56 percent more than France, 27 percent more than Japan, 80 percent
>>>>more than the United Kingdom, 62 percent more than Finland, 62 percent
>>>>more than Belgium, and 122 percent more than South Korea. At the
>>>>secondary-school level, the figures are similar, with the U.S.
>>>>outpacing Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and South Korea,
>>>>among others, by more than 40 percent per pupil.
>>>>
>>>>Despite all this spending, the U.S. ranked 15th among the 31 countries
>>>>that participated in the OECD's 2000 Program for International Student
>>>>*****sment reading exam. Ireland, Iceland, and New Zealand were among
>>>>the nations that outperformed the U.S. while spending far less per
>>>>pupil. The results in math are equally disquieting: In the
>>>>international 1999 TIMSS study, which *****sed mathematics and science
>>>>achievement at the eighth-grade level, the U.S. ranked 19th out of 38
>>>>countries.
>>>
>>>Obviously the more you spend on education the worse the results.  What
a
>>>blow to capitalism.
>> 
>> Well...education isn't run by capitalists so there you have it.
>
>They tried.  The Edison Project was going bankrupt before Jeb Bush used
>some retirement funds to bail it out.
>
>>>But seriously, I'm not sure what you think this means or proves.  How
>>>does the cost of health insurance for staff and faculty (and even
>>>children) get figured into the above?  
>> 
>> Right...those costs gone up so much that its tripled the real dollars
>> spent since the 60's.
>
>Plus it's expensive teaching those extra forty years of history.
>
>Of course, many black schools back then hardly cost anything.
>
>>>Does anywhere spend as much on
>>>high school football coaches as Texas?  
>> 
>> Here we go again.
>> 
>>>Then there's school breakfast and lunch programs.  
>> 
>> Exaclty...why?
>
>Because kids can't concentrate on schoolwork if they're hungry.

Of course not...and we all know how hungry the are.

>>>How many of those countries charge major social
>>>welfare programs to their schools?  Come back when you've got some
>>>analysis that won't fit on a bumper sticker.
>> 
>> Fine.  Keep passing the buck...that way you can convince yourself
>> you're not part of the problem.
>
>You don't even know what the problem is.  Why don't you go to your
>local school board meetings and give them your marvelous advice on
>saving money.

Because they're like you.  They want to pass the buck.

JSL