From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:11:52 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <16857E197.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.180610.29940@m5.harvard.edu>
>borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <16856B98B.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>>>
>>>And again this silly claim that spending money is going to help the economy!
>>>We know this is ridiculous for a number of reasons. For one, we know that
>>>spending doesn't improve education. That's been established by many studies.
>>
>>Spending money certainly does improve education.  Not spending it randomly -
>>it has to be spent well, but there are certain badly needed changes in our
> 
>Reminds me of Friedman's comment on Clinton's plan to save x billions by
>eliminating waste- i.e., it's not a line item. SO if you spend money and
>education doesn't improve- as the statistics shown again and again- you just
>didn't spend it on the right things.

That's just an excuse for not trying to get it right.  Of course there need
to be improvements - but it must be acknowledged that many of these improvements
will need money.  Is it possible to redirect funding that already exists
without providing more funding?  Maybe, though I tend to doubt it.
> 
>>educational system that require money.  Many school are understaffed, and the
> 
>Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Average class size has fallen continuously in the
>post WWII era. We used to have excellent public schools with high achievement
>by students and 50+ students in a classroom. Now a class with 30 is
>"overcrowded."

Like it or not, people have changed, and for reasons that are not well
understood, smaller class sizes seem to be needed.  It probably varies
with the subject as well.
> 
>>teachers are often underpaid.  I met a high school teacher who told me that
>*****************************
> 
>Not in most states, where they are very well paid indeed. We've already
>had numbers published here on that. Where are yours?
> 
In my high school, there were a number of very good math and science teachers
who liked teaching, but needed to earn more money, so they left their
teaching jobs and got jobs in industry (so they could put their children
through college - there's another serious lack in educational funding).
There was an excellent history teacher, who loved teaching, and he was
considering going into real-estate full time, because he really needed to
earn more money, to put his kids through college.  (I think he did stay, and
only did real-estate part-time.)  But it's true that there is a trend these
days toward paying math and science teachers more.  But that's not sufficient,
if you don't hire enough of those people (see my next paragraph).

>>he has to have all different levels of students in his physics class, because
>>the school can only afford to have one physics class.  Now don't tell me that
>>this is a situation conducive to effective teaching.  It's a poor situation,
> 
>It's also a rare exception.

No it is not a rare exception.
> 
>>because you'll either have the slower students in over their heads, or you'll
>>have the brighter students sitting there bored out of their minds, or both.
>>The only way to effectively teach the subject is to have different sections
>>for different levels, and to have that you have to pay the teacher to be
>>there for more than one class, and to do that you need to SPEND MORE MONEY.
> 
>You're describing one teacher's story about one classroom and then arguing from
>that that we need to increase spending everywhere? Sorry, doesn't hold water.

We have to increase spending in situations like those.

>Schools have been getting more money every year, and scholastic performance
>has been falling every year. Those of us who have taught in a university for
>more than a few years have seen the incoming students get worse every year.
> 
>>It's so obvious that a child could understand it - but not a taxpayer, or
>>worse yet, a politician.  Then there's the fact that the most qualified
>>people are for the most not going into teaching, because they can make much
>>more money in industry.  In order to get better teachers in the schools, you
>>need to offer teachers better salaries, and in order to do that you need to
>>SPEND MORE MONEY ON EDUCATION.  I'm not saying that there aren't reforms
>>that are needed, and things on which educational costs could be cut.  But we
>>need to address the serious lack of resources from which many of our public
>>schools are suffering.  There are basic, obvious problems in our schools that
>>can be solved by spending more money.
>>
>All your arguments are completely without merit, without substance, and
>contrary to the data quoted in this forum and elsewhere. Either find some
>real numbers or find some new arguments. Sorry about that.

I may not have figures on hand, but my arguments have plenty of merit and
substance, unlike yours.
> 
>>I'm going to try and find an article I read which discussed the Head Start
>>program, a very successful program that saves society money and anguish in
>>the long term, a program which has yet to be fully funded.  If anyone else
>>knows anything about it in the meantime, a post would be welcome.
>>
>Head Start is one of the very few Great Society programs that was
>purported to have measureable positive results. It was not part of the
>school systems, but a seperate program designed to being students from
>illiterate and "culturally deprived" households up to the same level as
>other students when they entered kindergarten. It has nothing to do with
>your arguments listed above.

It has PLENTY to do with the above.  How could you think it doesn't?!  It's
PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.  Even you agree that it works - why hasn't
it been fully funded?
> 
>   --mike edelman

  - Dave Borden