Underfunding American Schools...Why Suddenly No Money?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yeah, I'll agree with that. I think I'd misunderstood where you were coming from at first.

Just to clarify, I don't care if someone goes to university, works toward a degree, and plays sports in his free time. I object to Big Ten institutions practically sucking high school senior athletes' cocks by offering them ludicrous scholarships to come and play for their schools. I similarly object to coaches at universities getting paid as much as a full order of magnitude more than professors for not even contributing to the university's primary purpose.

EDIT: I believe there was a movement a while back by college athletes to get salaries. The sheer gall of these people just amazes me sometimes. Many of them already get stipends, for Christ's sake.

I absolutely agree. Nothing pisses me off more than the favoring given to athletes in general. It's not just in college, it is everywhere.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And of course the money they recieve could be better spent on updated equipment, fuding research projects, and giving scholarships to undergraduuate students who not nly actually study, but could not otherwise afford to go to school.

[PainRack]

Even if you don't want to eliminate the teachers' unions altogether (which needs to be done, regardless), then you should create a pay-scale for teachers that's based mainly on an incentive-based system, so top-performing teachers get better pay than shitty ones. It would be trivially easy to establish such a system off of standardized tests that already exist, and while not being perfect, it would go far to bring professionals into teaching and cutting dead-weight instructors from classrooms.

It's also extraordinarily easy to show how this would benefit schools. Not that the unions would go for it, since their job is to protect the worst teachers, but fuck them. If they didn't go for this, it would basically be an admission that they don't care about the best interests of the kids at all (which they already admit regularly), and would hopefully cripple their political strength.

Okay, that just went into a whole new ballgame of its own.

Its extremely, extremely, easy to mug up on standarised tests. I should know. That's how I surivived O level Elementary math. However, more damaging to the education system is the way that teachers can spoon feed students on the "correct" answers to a question. Non-ethical teachers will have an unfair advantage in this arena, because it is extremely easy to highlight answers to a question and feed them into the class, without going into what one will consider outright cheating.

[Master of Ossus]

Okay, that just went into a whole new ballgame of its own.

Its extremely, extremely, easy to mug up on standarised tests.

Right. I agree that the system isn't perfect, since standardized tests can usually be beaten by smart students, but since most teachers in a given school (except for advanced-track teachers, who would have a separate set of incentives) have approximately the same number of gifted students, it wouldn't matter across schools and probably not even across districts.

I should know. That's how I surivived O level Elementary math. However, more damaging to the education system is the way that teachers can spoon feed students on the "correct" answers to a question. Non-ethical teachers will have an unfair advantage in this arena, because it is extremely easy to highlight answers to a question and feed them into the class, without going into what one will consider outright cheating.

That's why virtually all standardized tests have students being proctored by someone who is not their teacher--to prevent such conflicts of interest. Again, this is trivially easy to set up, and despite the flaws that DO exist in the system it would be massively better than what we do now.

[PainRack]

Right. I agree that the system isn't perfect, since standardized tests can usually be beaten by smart students, but since most teachers in a given school (except for advanced-track teachers, who would have a separate set of incentives) have approximately the same number of gifted students, it wouldn't matter across schools and probably not even across districts.

When I meant mug, I meant poring through years and years of questions and doing them. There's no need for being "gifted", and such a tactic doesn't teach you the anaylatical skills etc etc you're supposed to take away from school.

That's why virtually all standardized tests have students being proctored by someone who is not their teacher--to prevent such conflicts of interest. Again, this is trivially easy to set up, and despite the flaws that DO exist in the system it would be massively better than what we do
now.

I don't meant during the test itself, I meant the time-period up to the test date. For one, its relatively easy for a teacher to figure out what the test questions are. Especially after above said standardised tests are out for a few years. You can then simply duplicate similar, or even the exact same questions and just ask your students to do them for homework, or use them as examples on the board. Now, granted, this still requires students to listen in class, however, its weigh the scale against teachers who genuinely want to teach students knowledge and skills, as opposed to just seeking solutions from the teach.

[PainRack]

I should clarify something. I'm not against the use of standardised tests. They are vital to gauging the performance of a student. However, I'm against issuing finanicial incentives to teachers whoose class perform better at such tests.

Unless when one says incentives, he means that such tests are one of the factors in promotion.

[Master of Ossus]

I should clarify something. I'm not against the use of standardised tests. They are vital to gauging the performance of a student. However, I'm against issuing finanicial incentives to teachers whoose class perform better at such tests.

Unless when one says incentives, he means that such tests are one of the factors in promotion.

Obviously I don't want the ONLY bonuses to come from standardized test scores, but I think they should be a significant factor since they are objective and separate from the sort of school-politics that plagues the current hiring and firing policies in schools.

The idea is simply to come up with low-cost methods of wage-discrimination for teachers. Since standardized tests already exist in every state, and since the scores can easily be back-tracked to teachers, implementing them as a portion of the wage equation would involve practically no cost to the district but would provide appreciable results in improving teacher consistency and quality.

This is by no means the only thing about the current system that needs to be done to help America's education system--the current administration system needs to be completely revamped, for one; the over-sight ability of state- and federal-level governments needs to be dramatically expanded and given new powers and abilities--but this step would in and of itself improve teaching quality and could potentially be done without eliminating teachers' unions altogether (although I think they eventually need to go or be totally restructured).

[tharkûn]

Personally I'm not all that up in arms about the atheletes. Here at U of M we do pander to the football team, however the sports budget is completely and totally seperate from both the academic and research budget. If Athletics doesn't break even, something gets cut. Essentially our football, basketball, and hockey teams carry all the other sports and the only thing that happens academically is that we admit ignoramuses who study kinesiology and take sports classes for credits. Frankly our resident "activist" population is not only less intelligent; they also have the gall to directly hinder MY education. Having an idiot admitted to "study kinesiology" and having an idiot admitted to study "gender studies" is all the same to me.

Really at the university level funding is not a big question, the American collegiate system is on par with anything else in the world and its top tier is only surpassed by a handiful of institutes, like say Cambridge.

At the K-12 level, sports simply don't have that huge of a budget. Only the most aggregious offenders will be building massively costly stadiums; but whole swaths of schools suck and fail - for instance most of Detroit. Frankly I doubt that sports is all that major of a contributer to the failure of American schools; really I think it gets back to the 1% of abject morons who need to be tossed in triage so the other 99% can learn and the general lack of a will to learn students bring to school.

Lousy teachers, incompotent unions, security issues ... these all contribute to the problem in a significant manner. Athletes getting a free ride seems trivial in comparison.

[Col. Crackpot]

regarding the hissy fit you all are getting into over college athletics, did you see the grandstands at the last Big East basketball game? Of the last PAC-10 Football game? How about the TV ratings? Do you think for a second that people would be buying Michigan and Notre Dame and Georgia Tech sweatshirts, T-Shirts and hats if there wasn't a team? You can talk all you want about how the money would be better spent on academics, but the fact is that money wouldn't exist if not for the athletics department. Well, not unless you can convince 50,000 people to sit in the grandstands and watch a forensic accounting class... and I don't see that happeneing any time soon.

[Mayabird]

regarding the hissy fit you all are getting into over college athletics, did you see the grandstands at the last Big East basketball game? Of the last PAC-10 Football game? How about the TV ratings? Do you think for a second that people would be buying Michigan and Notre Dame and Georgia Tech sweatshirts, T-Shirts and hats if there wasn't a team? You can talk all you want about how the money would be better spent on academics, but the fact is that money wouldn't exist if not for the athletics department. Well, not unless you can convince 50,000 people to sit in the grandstands and watch a forensic accounting class... and I don't see that happeneing any time soon.

There's also the fact that for college, athletics can be great advertising. How many people first heard about Georgia Tech last year when we got in the Final Four in college basketball? Probably lots. Not only that, but it's free advertising. The media is all over themselves reporting it.

Also in college, the athletic associations have a separate budget that isn't connected with the rest of the college. They get their own donations and money from tickets and marketing and so on. Besides, ours pays for the band to go on trips and gets us big stipends and other free goodies, and I'm not one for biting the hand that feeds me.

Can't compare college and pre-college athletics. Two different animals.

[Master of Ossus]

Personally I'm not all that up in arms about the atheletes. Here at U of M we do pander to the football team, however the sports budget is completely and totally seperate from both the academic and research budget. If Athletics doesn't break even, something gets cut. Essentially our football, basketball, and hockey teams carry all the other sports and the only thing that happens academically is that we admit ignoramuses who study kinesiology and take sports classes for credits.

You don't see that as an issue? Any sport that isn't at least breaking even should be cut. It's that simple. The ignoramuses that play sports and study sports are hurting the value of your degree.

Frankly our resident "activist" population is not only less intelligent; they also have the gall to directly hinder MY education. Having an idiot admitted to "study kinesiology" and having an idiot admitted to study "gender studies" is all the same to me.

True, which is why they should be cut, also. Activists actually tend to piss me off much more than athletes, but I digress...

Really at the university level funding is not a big question, the American collegiate system is on par with anything else in the world and its top tier is only surpassed by a handiful of institutes, like say Cambridge.

Actually, the top-tier American colleges OWN Cambridge and most European colleges. The new system of funding for colleges in England has been especially damaging, and has taken formerly top-notch schools like Cambridge and Oxford and turned them into second-echelon institutions for undergraduates.

At the K-12 level, sports simply don't have that huge of a budget.

Bullshit. Facilities for sports are extraordinarily expensive both to build and to maintain. Many HS's spend well over 10% of their budgets on sports facilities and instructors, and some spend as much as 50%.

Only the most aggregious offenders will be building massively costly stadiums; but whole swaths of schools suck and fail - for instance most of Detroit.

Athletics are not the ONLY reason why the American primary and secondary education system is so weak, but they are a significant contributing factor.

Frankly I doubt that sports is all that major of a contributer to the failure of American schools; really I think it gets back to the 1% of abject morons who need to be tossed in triage so the other 99% can learn and the general lack of a will to learn students bring to school.

Lousy teachers, incompotent unions, security issues ... these all contribute to the problem in a significant manner. Athletes getting a free ride seems trivial in comparison.

Even if that were true, one should not simply ignore small problems while solving major ones. You need to at least be aware of them so as to prepare plans to address them. Cutting sports is economically extremely easy, even if it is politically difficult, and it would improve American primary and secondary education. In fact, it may potentially improve athletics by expanding unaffiliated organizations, which traditionally are largely ignored once kids reach HS age.

[tharkûn]

You don't see that as an issue? Any sport that isn't at least breaking even should be cut. It's that simple. The ignoramuses that play sports and study sports are hurting the value of your degree.

First off I'm working on a graduate degree which is a completely different value. Second if my degree were going to be devalued by some idiot at the school, the thousand odd student-athletes are doing it FAR less damage than the thousands of English, Gender Studies, Ethnic Studies, Organizational, American Culture, etc. who manage to have a median A- for their GPA. Third the only people who come to college and truely do jack didly squat are the PROFITABLE teams. Most of our gymnastics team knows they have zero chance of a career in sports so they actually are using the oppurtunity given to get a degree. With the exception of some of our olympic caliber swimmers and the like; none of our net loss athletes are hoping to make it big in their sport. They are just like all the other individuals who get extracurricular "scholarships" and get in with worse numbers.

Hell if I really had a place to begin to trim the fat I'd:
1. Ban the Legacy admissions.
2. Retroactively disenroll everyone who got in under the illegal disguised quota system.
3. Create a stand alone "College of Science" to go with the "College of Egineering".

True, which is why they should be cut, also. Activists actually tend to piss me off much more than athletes, but I digress...

As I said athletes are a far less pressing problem than activist morons, legacy morons, and "racial diversity" morons (these categories are far from mutually exclusive).

Actually, the top-tier American colleges OWN Cambridge and most European colleges. The new system of funding for colleges in England has been especially damaging, and has taken formerly top-notch schools like Cambridge and Oxford and turned them into second-echelon institutions for undergraduates.

In other words, American colleges are among the best in the world. Hardly a sign that athletics are being a giant vacuum on funding.

Bullshit. Facilities for sports are extraordinarily expensive both to build and to maintain. Many HS's spend well over 10% of their budgets on sports facilities and instructors, and some spend as much as 50%.

Facilities also LAST years; yes the OCCASIONAL seriously deluded school system will replace its athletic facilities too often, but the district I pay taxes into (where the football team actually makes money for the school) hasn't replaced its athletic facilities in a decade and a half.

I'm calling for proof on that funding statement. Can you even document a half dozen districts were 50% or more of the budget goes into athletics?

letics are not the ONLY reason why the American primary and secondary education system is so weak, but they are a significant contributing factor.

Please provide some objective proof here. Frankly even American elementary education sucks and there is virtually nothing in the way of athletes mooching off the system.

Even if that were true, one should not simply ignore small problems while solving major ones. You need to at least be aware of them so as to prepare plans to address them. Cutting sports is economically extremely easy, even if it is politically difficult, and it would improve American primary and secondary education. In fact, it may potentially improve athletics by expanding unaffiliated organizations, which traditionally are largely ignored once kids reach HS age.

Let's be pragmatic. Athletics are popular, thus it will be hard to change them. Athletics is a very small part of the problem, if it is a part at all. Fighting a hard battle for minimal gain is always a poor strategic choice.


When kids can't read in the 3rd grade (like Detroit) then the problem is far bigger than athletics or even insufficient funding. This myopic emphasis on athletics and to a lesser extent on funding is downright counterproductive.