Public Education: Vital for modern society or a scam?

[giblets]

Actually, my source was in error, and I was right that businesses are leaving CA. Ming has the better approach anyways, go to the source.

I hope you're not teaching math. If California had 52 Fortune 500 companies in 2006, and it has 57 now, then it's increasing.

[Ben Kenobi]

I hope you're not teaching math. If California had 52 Fortune 500 companies in 2006, and it has 57 now, then it's increasing.

Businesses can leave CA and the total for CA can still increase. They had 51 in 2009, so it seems to be that there are 6 new CA companies that made the list this year.

[KrazyHorse]

From APS:

Earlier this week, the APS sent out an alert regarding major cuts
in FY11 to science proposed in H.R. 1. These cuts, if enacted,
would have a dramatic effect on particle physics research in the
US. Since the year is half-over, the 20% cut suggested for the
DOE Office of Science must be treated as a 40% cut in the remaining
half of the year. For example, the director of Fermilab, Pier
Oddone, has stated it will be impossible to accommodate these cuts
without major disruptions including layoffs, furloughs and immediate
stoppage of all accelerator operations at the laboratory for the
remainder of the fiscal year.

All DOE Office of Science Laboratories will be similarly affected
as will DOE SC projects and supported programs such as the LHC and
the university grants programs. At risk are laboratory staff
positions as well as post doctoral and graduate student positions
at U.S. universities.

Not only will U.S. particle physics be seriously impacted, but the
opportunities for science research in the U.S. would be permanently
reduced should the proposed cuts to a broad range of science
programs be enacted.

These drastic cuts do not have to happen. Don.t forget to speak
up NOW and to take the time contact your representative in Congress.

The selfish part of me wants to make sure that the federal government keeps funding physics research, as long they charge a surtax on the employment of graduate students.

Increased demand and decreased supply of substitutes for my labor = good for me

[giblets]

Businesses can leave CA and the total for CA can still increase. They had 51 in 2009, so it seems to be that there are 6 new CA companies that made the list this year.

So as it turns out, this is simply false:

California's not as bad as some states (IL), in terms of debt, but anyone who wants to make money, won't be putting permanent residency anywhere near CA.

[Ben Kenobi]

I stand by that statement.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/07/13/daily18.html

[giblets]

I stand by that statement.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...3/daily18.html

The states ahead of California this year are perennial No. 1 Hawaii with 6.41 percent, followed by Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, Massachusetts, Alaska and New Hampshire.

Somehow Texas doesn't top the list. At least it's not Arkansas.

[Jon Miller]

The selfish part of me wants to make sure that the federal government keeps funding physics research, as long they charge a surtax on the employment of graduate students.

Increased demand and decreased supply of substitutes for my labor = good for me

I feel I have done pretty good at my post doc, but it makes me think about other jobs too.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Somehow Texas doesn't top the list. At least it's not Arkansas.

Neither does new york or California. Why might that be?

[giblets]

Because not every state can be at the top?

[Kuciwalker]

Fund all local schools by state governments. Take property taxes for education and pool them at the state level.

And that's not even close to making all places equally rich.

Why do we continue to believe that funding has an effect on outcomes?

[Al B. Sure!]

Why do we continue to believe that funding has an effect on outcomes?

Because it does, to an unknown extent. Do you think there isn't a correlation between school district budget and high school graduation rates?

[DaShi]

I think the issue is that simply throwing money into public schools isn't going to fix them. You need to ensure that the money is well spent and creating value.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think the issue is that simply throwing money into public schools isn't going to fix them. You need to ensure that the money is well spent and creating value.

Well of course. Like I said earlier, money won't fix all education woes but et ceteris paribus, a bigger budget will provide some additional benefits for the students, even if it wouldn't be a 1:1 relationship between dollars spent and perception of value of marginal improvements in education quality.

As I noted:

In Philadelphia, the School District spends $2,215 less per student than the average suburban school, and six districts are spending over $5,000 more per student than Philadelphia. The gap with the 20 percent high spending schools in the state was $2,709 per student or $572 million for the entire district each year. By the end of 12 years of schooling the average student in the high spending districts receives $32,000 more in education spending than Philadelphia teens--the equivalent of three years of schooling.

That $32K per student over 12 years ($2666 per student per year) is the reason why Philadelphia public schools use decades-old textbooks, have virtually no science lab resources beyond bunsen burners, offer limited technical course selection, are less able to attract quality teachers, etc.

And it's not because Philadelphians are paying less in relative taxes. The property tax rate in Philadelphia is the highest in the state. Yes, dollar for dollar, they are paying less due to deflated home values, but a greater percentage of Philadelphian household income is being spent on local taxes (not to mention the city wage tax which does not exist outside of the city and the sales tax which is significantly lower outside of the city).

All that really means is that poorer people with low-value homes due to a variety of circumstances including crime, blight, and poverty, are paying relatively more in taxes, and receiving less funding in the primary area that would allow their children to leave such conditions.

[KrazyHorse]

Because it does, to an unknown extent. Do you think there isn't a correlation between school district budget and high school graduation rates?

There are a number of studies showing that if there is a relationship (across the range of per-pupil expenditures seen in the US) which remains after controlling for other factors like parental income and education, then it is a singularly weak one. Anybody who has thought seriously about this issue already knows that.

[Al B. Sure!]

So education budgets should be the first thing to get cut then, right? And there should be no concern for urban school districts both underperforming and receiving less funding relative to their suburban counterparts?