Question about school district funding

[mkelley_25]

It seems to me that every school district I have heard about recently (including the one in which I live) is facing a huge budget shortfall.  That makes me wonder about a lot of things, including: how were schools funded back in the 1950's and 1960's when American students were actually some of the best in the world?  What has happened in the last 20 years that we have increased school spending SO MUCH (along with the taxes) and yet have seen little (if any) "return on investment?"  How come we're spending so much money on schools, yet you hear about students using outdated books, sharing books, or even those with no books at all?  Lastly, I wonder if there are better ways to fund schools and decrease spending without further decreasing the education of our students.

[vern]

Schools are built on the socialist model, and are looked at today as a form of infrastructure.  When people buy a home, they often shop around for school districts more than for, say, water quality.  The right wing alternative to the failures of government schools is now the Charter School, basically a corporate privatization scheme.

I'm a fan of tuition vouchers, a guarantee of education for all kids to be provided by a vibrant, responsive and free market.  Let parents vote like they do at the store.  It would be better for teachers, parents and students.

Things might have been better in the 50s and 60s for some, but certainly not for everybody.  That educational "quality" continues to drop to all time lows is no mystery.  Central planning simply doesn't work well, whether its a school district or an entire economy.  If people need help, help them directly, in this case with a tuition voucher.

That's my take anyway, and there are a bunch here in the LPPa who agree with this scheme.  Still others take a more conservative view, which is fine.  Your concern over the issue is shared by everyone here and by most people in your community.

[Mik]

I think the Commonwealth Foundation did have a good point about schools being encouraged to use state funding to construct buildings and facilities, which then must be maintained. How many high schools do you know of that have great football fields, theaters, and other ancillary facilities? Not that these things should be ignored, but they are secondary to the primary function of the schools. I know a lot of Amish kids that come out of the one-room schoolhouse more literate and well-read than a lot of public school graduates. Not all, of course, but the focus on bigger and more all of the time in the name of efficiency is starting to take it's toll.