9 Comment(s)

1. bingo25 | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply

   Jim,

   Public area schools do seem to waste a lot of taxpayer money no doubt. But comparing area public schools with much smaller christian schools like Ross Corners or CBA locally with 20-30 teachers really isn’t a valid comparison. Public schools do not have the ability to hand select who can come or not. There are a lot of school districts such as JC that has a large group of handicapped students (inclusive) that require a 1 to 1 aid. For those students, and there are quite a few, the cost goes much higher like 40k or more. A valid compaint here would be for the crazy spending on sports facilities and equipment at these schools, its like high school sports moved to college level spending the last 10 – 15 years. My complaint isn’t about how high the budget is but rather how little return of investment our kids get. NYS schools are handcuffed into using an inept BOCES program and spend all their time worrying about these needless state exams that the press loves to send out. Forgive any typo’s…..in a hurry.

2. mike | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

   Not sure a comparison between public and private schools is valid here. Private schools, Ross Corners and CBCA, with 20-30 instructors can be selective as far as enrollment and class size whereas public districts can see a fairly dramatic change in class size from year to year. Public schools such as JC are inclusionary meaning all students regardless of ability are in the classroom. There are a good number of physically and mentally handicapped children that require a full time aid to help them abd specialized busses and equipment. For these children the costs probably go more towards 40-50k each or more. I am glad they don’t just “ship them somewhere else” Having handicapped children in the mainstream classroom teaches tolerance and acceptance for students as well as increases ability and self-confidence in challenged students. Whatever it costs to educate ALL students is fine with me. Public schools absolutely have problems with payroll and health care but a good argument may be to talk about the explosion in school sports programs “lights for night games, college quality fields, tracks and courts….” Utility bills, fuel prices for schools are also increasing at the same rate as our own, that has to be added in as well and unpaid school lunches. The private schools with 1 or 2 buildings and a few busses don’t feel this pinch as much. I wonder what the cost per child would be if we focused on just classroom time. We could also discuss state testing which handcuffs our schools into trying to teach kids how to take a test instead of focusing on grade curriculum. Or why school districts get increased aid for children classified with learning disabilities, they have no incentive to get them back off classification since they would be giving money back to the state (losing money). The seemingly declining lack of parent participation in their childs education. There are a number of items about education that bother me but the costs going high does not concern me as long as I get a good return on my investment, our return on investment has been on the decline in my mind. I agree that just because the state proposes an increase in education we shouldn’t blindly accept. The waste has to be addressed first I agree.

3. Jim Willis | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

   Thanks Mike. Good points. However, I remain very skeptical about how much money it’s taking. New York’s spending on everything, including schools, is too high (my opinion). I would be happy to start with slowing the growth of spending, even more happy with keeping it at the current level, and ecstatic if they could reduce it! But let’s at least slow it down. I’m afraid people see how much the budget is for next year and their eyes glaze over and they just don’t realize how much is being spent. Year in and out school budgets are passed and rarely questioned or voted down.

   I guess I have a somewhat unique (and biased) view as my kids attend a private school–one of the area’s Christian schools. I happen to be the president of the PTF (our version of a PTA). I can tell you that the class sizes are comparable to public schools, the teachers make much less than teachers at public schools, and we get no public funding of any kind. Besides tuition, we scrimp and save and fundraise for every penny. We also extend charity and help some of our families who can’t afford full tuition (and attempt to keep the tuition at manageable levels for everyone). My wife and I sacrifice, economically, to send our kids there. But I would not have it any other way.

   While a direct comparison of private & public schools may not hold up under every circumstance, the point I try to make is that there is simply too much money being spent by taxpayers on educating our children in public schools. They might take a few pointers from private schools (and home schools) and voluntarily try to limit their spending. As you point out, there’s a difference between maintaining a field for games and having a collegiate-level field. Seems to me that we are buying things we don’t really need and going broke in the process.

   Another quick example: School lunches (and now breakfasts) should not be provided free of charge. It seems to be a compassionate thing to do–but it’s not compassionate to force me (the taxpayer) to pay for my neighbor’s kid’s lunch at school. That’s just plain wrong!

   Education is important. Public funding of education is not going away any time soon. Let’s at least slow down the rate of increase.

   Thanks for your comments Mike.

4. mike | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

   I have heard of several teachers that started working for private schools to build up a resume to move to public schools later for a pay increase. I feel that any teacher that is in it for the money and summers off is in it for all the wrong reasons. My wife is a public school teacher and for what she puts into it, the pay is not that good. Public schools like most government funded programs probably run using the old “if we don’t spend it this year, we may not get it next year” deal. I would have to think that payroll along with benefits for employees also contribute to a substantial piece of the school budget. Now we are talking about unions, with pressure from unions to not reduce benefits along with requests for 3% or whatever pay increases. Unions do not seem to be fiscally responsible. Personnel & heating/fuel prices going higher I think handcuff school districts and spending for students might be down after these are factored out. My school lunch comment was that many kids “charge” lunch all year without paying, kids do go home with a bill for charged lunches, but schools do not have a way to collect the money if its not offered and schools continue to let kids charge since they feel they cannot let a kid go without lunch. This alone is thousands of dollars in loss for food.
   I would like to see a private audit of each school just to see how money is wasted, that of course would take more taxpayer money.

5. Roger Thornhill | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

   Fact: in NY, 70 percent of your school tax dollar goes directly to salaries and benefits of teachers.

   In NY, TIAA-CREF, the top-rated retirement/annuity fund in the country, provide retirement bennies to schoolteachers in public and State Universities (staff as well at SUNY).

   A neighbor of ours is retired SUNY staff. While at SUNY Oneonta, the State paid $3 into his retirement fund, while he paid $1.
   His pension is valued at over $1 million (for 20 years service!) and throws off $60,000 per year return!

   The State/local teacher’s unions protect incompetance while feathering the member’s nests at public expense.

   Ask a retired state teacher. Although they’ll squirm or tell you its ‘none of your business’ it is IN FACT your business.

   Wouldn’t it be nice to retire a millionaire?

   Roger Thornhill

6. Jim Willis | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

   Great points Mike & Roger. Holy smokes Roger…who knew education paid so well!!! I’m definitely in the wrong line of work.

7. mike | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

   Most of my friends that have 4 year college degrees make substantially more than what my wife makes as a teacher. I have heard people say that the state provides a nice retirement system because the pay isn’t what it would be in the private sector. If those friends thought about retirement and invested before they were 45 or 50 there is no reason they could not have the same honey pot when they get to retirement age. Some choose to invest, most choose to spent it now and complain later. If they choose to spend instead of planning I do not feel bad for them. Didn’t IBM and EJ back in the good ol’ days offer some really nice incentives at retirement age? Employee’s at some point decided they wanted all the money up front. You read all the time about young adults putting money into a retirement account (paying themselves first) and retiring at the ripe old age of 50 or 55, my uncle did it in fact and he worked in private industry his entire life. Keep in mind I am talking about college educated and higher. Teachers have to obtain a masters. If your neighbor drove a bus for SUNY 20 years and retired a millionaire its time to get upset. If your neighbor was an administrator or whatever good for him.

8. Jim Willis | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

   Really good point Mike. Ultimately we all are responsible for our own actions and our own retirement planning. No argument there. The startling thing about what Roger said is that the State is investing $3 for every $1 invested by the employee. I don’t think even the most generous private sector companies do that–and certainly not smaller companies. Yup, we need to sock it away ourselves and not cry about it later….but, a 3/1 investment rate is overly generous by any standard if you ask me.

   Thanks for another great comment Mike.

9. mike | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

   A 3/1 investment does seem high unless the lower wage stands true. Roger was talking about someone who entered the workforce 20+ years ago, isn’t the state retirement system built into tiers? Roger does seem to have more facts, he might know more about this. Perhaps that was the deal back then, that is why I talked about IBM, I’d bet private industry had similar systems back then. You couldn’t swing a PS2 around here without hitting some mid-level or higher IBM manager around here back then. I have an engineer friend that almost doubles my wife’s salary. My point is that the higher wages would offset the discrepancy in investing. If she makes 35k and invests 1k and he makes 70k and invests 4k, he still brings home 30k plus more money, therefore in my mind he can’t whine about anything if he doesn’t invest. I know that’s not apples to apples, just trying to explain my thought.

Post a Comment