Back to Business

I agree, money is tight, the economy sucks but education is NOT the place to save money. The problem is too many politicians have money wrapped up in pet projects that they're not willing to see die. If government cared about anything other than power and staying in office by buying votes, I think we could solve the budget crisis quickly.

Look at the budget and cut the crap that doesn't help the entire state, money to rebuild some towns library or pay some artist to paint or make a statue isn't going to help the state anyway.

Taking money and teachers away from our kids is NOT right.

Does Governor Daniels and Mr. Borders want schools to fail? What a loaded question. I think Governor Daniels has a clear agenda and vision of what education should be like. He has made it very clear that he wants to turn public education into a free market. One with a voucher system and consolidated schools districts. He talks about money saved, yet fails to talk about the power lost when the state government and larger school districts take over. One could argue whether it was for the better or not. Rep. Borders has a long history of being in step with anything the Governor proposes.

Cuts in the Arts and Music would be a horrible thing. Then again the cutting of Ag and Trade classes have weakened many of our schools as well. You can't talk about strong schools out of one side of your mouth while stripping them of the tools needed to achieve that with the other side of your mouth.

Ignorance? Is that what differing opinions are? Starting to sound a bit like a squabble between a couple elementary kids.

Indiana isn't bankrupt??? Of course not, Mitch passed that bill on to us. He didn't raise taxes, yet raised the sales tax. He claims to have made tough choices...actually he just cut the funding and gave everyone a pat on the back and said figure it out. Some did...some didn't. He did an outstanding job of clearing his books of the red, but the red didn't disappear...it was absorbed by small communities, state employees, state parks, and state education.

Will this help Indiana in the long run? Maybe, I'm sure it forced out some of the dead weight...but it also hurt the good. I'm just sick of Mitch's spin. It is almost as if he is auditioning for the election of 2012.

Interesting...I guess differing opinions must mean you are a liberal big government lover. I'm more of the middle of the road kind of guy. I can't stand the spin from either side.

What some people call fat...others call jobs. I guess our economy has just been cutting fat...no big deal.

I'm not a fan of balooning government, but there are parts of government that are important. Education is one of those.

As for Governor Daniels tough decisions, he just spearheaded the loss of funds...hard working Hoosiers were the ones that had to sink or swim with his tough decisions.

As for the "spin", I realize cutting spending and pawning the state expenditures on to schools, small communities, and state employees was a good move for his books. I'm just not sold on how it has helped Hoosiers. Communities have had to increase their rates in order to find the lost revenue from the state...we pay that. Schools have cut programs and teachers. Some even had to take out loans to continue operating the last time our governor withheld money from schools. People have lost their jobs.

I know that is hard for some to believe, but I support a Governor that is fiscally responsible with MY money! I guess we could be like California or some of the other states and stick our head in the sand and wait for Obama to ride in on his white horse and save the day! Here's the scoop on that...IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN!

I hear you making all these comments about cutting education spending, but have yet to hear you provide a REAL solution to the problem! I have kids in school and education is the last thing I want to see cut, but there just doesn't seem to be any other way.

It would seem to me that all of you "spend now, worry about it later" folks would get the hint. Tuesday's election in MA was not just a political upset, it was America screaming WE DO NOT WANT BIG GOVERNMENT AND THE PRICE THAT GOES WITH IT!

Where do I start...I'm parent who spends far more than that time on homework a week. I also read to my children nightly and challenge them to learn, so I'll excercise my American right to complain whenever I see fit.

I can see that passing the buck onto someone else is a viable way to clear your books. Seems like smoke and mirrors to me. Gov. Daniels passed the financial woes onto schools and small communities.

As for schools, conservatives and liberals are both clueless. Schools are not businesses like conservatives seem to think, and money will not fix all the problems. Schools are asked to do more now than anytime throughout our history. Families are failing, communities are crumbling, and we now are challenged to produce students that can compete in a world economy(not too long ago schools main goal was to produce functioning members of their local communities). Money can help with after school programs, at-risk programs, all day kindergarten, even public school preschool. It can also reduce class sizes and add the arts and trade courses back into our curriculum. Money can help(if used correctly), but it can't cure the parents who neglect their children's education.

The question is what does a 60 million dollar cut in education mean for schools...depends on the school. Some can handle a year or two of low funds from the state...some can't. Those that can't will have to find alternate ways to increase revenue. Property taxes aren't there to aleviate the short, so they will have to cut programs and teachers, while raising prices on any means they have. Once again...somebody is going to pay...may be with a job or increased school fees...but somebody is paying.

Privatizing the cafeteria crews is a new suggestion from the state...I don't know the facts and figures, but I think Eastern does it.

Combining school districts/superintendents is an option, but it comes with strings. By combining schools, you will combine school boards. This takes power away from these communities on how to run their school. Most people believe the subtraction of superintendent's would be a major savings...I'm not so sure. Most superintendent's around Greene county make somewhere in the 75K-95K ballpark. There are 5 superintendent's(maybe 1 assistant super) in the county. That is roughly 400-425K combined. Doubtful we could combine the whole county...maybe two districts divided by the White river. Shakamak, WRV, and Linton would now be a school corp. of roughly 3000+ students. Superintendents for that size of corp. would make close to 125K...throw in an assistant that makes roughly 75K and that isn't much of a save...maybe a teacher salary(but where would that teacher go...I guess the new schools board would have fun with that).

I'm all for getting rid of ISTEP, but it complies with No Child Left Behind federal funds. I've always heard it costs the state 1 million dollars to grade that test...schools took it 3 seperate times last year.

I always wonder why the pay of politicians is never on the table when discussing cuts.

James30096- Wow! I don't know exactly where to begin. I'm sorry your own personal experiences would allow you to have such a strong opinion against schools.

Teaching is not a business...Are there aspects of it that is businesslike...sure, but so is any government position, whether it is local, state, or federal. Educating a child is far more than providing a service...it isn't a haircut.

One big hole in your rant against the "Man"...Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are federal programs...schools are controlled by the state and more importantly local school boards(at least for now). The state forces each school to comply with No Child Left Behind because it is a big money maker from the feceral government(that is a whole other argument).

As for homeschooling, there are some successes and there are some failures. The failures are borderline neglect. There are parents out there that are capable of providing a quality academic education to their children. The good ones also set up social gatherings, expose them to the arts, and encourage them to play sports or be physiclly active. Sadly, some don't do anything. The standards expected out of a homeschooled child is far less than the state mandated standards. For the good ones...it doesn't matter...for the bad...it isn't good for the child.

Private schools are another completely different deal. Something about forking over 5-10K a year in tuition weeds out the student body. They have parents that may be educated, have money, or simply be hard working(which sets a great example). It isn't really a fair comparison. Even some of the charter schools in Indy created to reach at-risk kids have certain types of kids they are looking for. They are looking for high IQ kids.

Privatizing education would be great for those people with no kids...but the tuition would shock many parents. Take a look at some tuitions across the state. I had one parent tell me he was going to spend roughly 90K-100K per kid to send them from K-12.

Make no mistake. Scott brown won in Massachusetts due to the shift of Independent voters away from the liberal/progressive agenda.

Facts: Massachusetts voters are:

Independent=51%

Democrat=36%

Republican=12%

clueless=1%

So by making excuses for the rain, lackluster candidates, or whatever, one ignores the fact that the independent voters are exactly what makes America great (self-thinking, intellegent, tea-bagging force of the majority).

Both of the standard parties have failed by playing politics, locking out opposing views and by narcisistic goals.

November will show you exactly this point, rain or shine.

This is one of the best debate blogs I have read in a while. I applaud everyone for commenting and fighting/arguing cleanly for the most part. My view on education is that it is both a business and a craft. These two sides have almost always been in conflict. I see the value of "cutting the fat" or bad programs that aren't helping students and/or continuing to pay appathetic teachers to sit behind a desk and hand out worksheets, but the budget should not be cut. There needs to be a way to figure out what programs and teachers are really working and promote them.

-ISTEP is a joke and that needs to be addressed as both a waste of money and a bad example that promotes the appathetic attitude of the teacher who just "punches the clock."

-The consolidation of school systems is probably not the answer. (see GCC's take on this issue for a pretty good explanation regarding one larger super vs the five supers we already have.)

-The variety of subjects cannot be cut. This is a fundamental thing we are messing with when we cut arts and music.

-As for Drew's answer for aleviating the budget concerns with the politicians salaries, I both agree and disagree. You're math is a little off if you think you're going to find that much money by cutting thier salaries and sessions. But I think you hit the nail on the head with leading by example.

jimmy42,

"One person cannot deal with the tasks of five schools" Interesting comment. You might want to check into that a little more. I think you will find that you are slightly off with your statement!

I think it would be hard to find a school corporation of 3,000+ students with one superintendent. A school like that would most likely have at least an assistant(likely would have someone in charge of curriculum and/or school transportation).

It is always easy to look at the person at the top and criticize their importance/worth. Teachers and even principals are in the classrooms and schools making visible contributions...spers. aren't. They have to deal with legal issues, state mandates, negotiate with unions, weather issues, transportation issues, budgets, etc... I'm sure I'm missing a great deal...I doubt it is a walk in the park. That doesn't even count the emotional and mental drain from being the person in charge of all major decisions.

As for the earlier comment about local control. Schools actually have quite a bit. The state passes down parameters for schools...local schools can make decisions on how to go about reaching those goals. For example, block scheduling vs. periods in the HS...Start time and end time of each school day...Vacations days...Which textbooks to buy...where to make the cuts...Hiring of staff...the list goes on and on.

lip bloodied, eye blacked and ribs kicked in....let's move on to the next subject, Drew!

"All in all, private education is truly meant for the elite people of the world....Yes it would be cheaper for the taxpayer to rid of it and go exclusively to private education"

This seems like a contradictory paragraph. Do you mean private schools are cheaper or more expensive and people can't afford them?

I know this, when competition (i.e. capitalism) is used, then results will increase at a lower cost.

I totally agree that schools should compete with each other both academically and fiscally. Then schools will hire and keep the best teachers, to attract students and to excel academically.

The greatest obstacle is the teachers' union /administration confrontation that keeps teachers pay low, tenured, and non-incentivized to the dismay of this generation of learners.

The product of the school is an educated student. The customer is the parent base. The supplier is the school. Let freedom reign and let schools compete.

"This utopia of schools competing and bringing out the best in the other is naive at best."

This concept seems to be generating some pretty good college graduates. How naive is that?

The problem is that American education is so dumbed-down and lacks the morals necessary to help each student succeed.

With competitive schools, the money would follow the enrollment. If enrollment drops, then the money falls short. Eventually , the poor performers would close due to bankruptcy, unless of course some bleeding -heart liberal would get in the way and bail them out. If enrollment increases, then the school could afford more and better teachers.

Personally, I like the benefits of freedom and dispise entitlements and sluggards.

Having a right to education is different than being entitled to it.

Standards may be written more thoroughly (harder-in your words)due to our tax money paying someone to write them. The students just don't learn those standards.

Unfortunately, most parents do not teach the morals of the past. "What one generation does in moderation, the next one does in excess", Dr. Clarence Doyle. For example, therefore, if parents allow their children to get peirced ears in one generation, then perhaps the next generation will allow facial piercings, and on and on. Tatoos, vulgar language, lack of reading comprehension, disrespect of authority have all increased over the past 2 or 3 generations. Granted, there are many exceptions (usually due to caring parents), where standard remain high.

I don't think we want to depend on our secular, public schools to teach morals to our children, do you? I guess if the parents don't, schools don't then the prisons will...right?

I am familiar with and have read the standards for English, Math and Biology (all CORE 40 required classes) furnished on the State DOE website. Quite frankly, we learned more in the 60's and 70's than the standards even mention.

Try to get the local cashier at the gas station to count back your change or subtract without the computer or a calculator. Our students are not learning the basics.

Besides, since you are the expert on who knows about public schools, then you could tell me the county passing rates of the CORE 40 in English, Math and Biology. When you produce the miserable data, then please reiterate how well the current system is doing.

We would do better as a society, to eliminate ISTEP, fail students who deserve to fail, and fire the teachers who are not teaching.

By default, we will be left with students who learn (and pass), teachers who teach well and better performing schools.

Good point!

Drew, thank you for responding. I am not saying private education is superior to public; rather, I think parents should decide. Competition will lower the cost and improve the quality of education, public or otherwise.

Do you believe that private school teachers are more interested in activities other than teaching? Private schools focus on education so they seek professionals passionate about teaching, licensed or otherwise. So they tend to attract and hire teachers who genuinely want to teach, not perform research. The mathematician at a private school is there because they have a desire to pass on their knowledge. Unless research is the focus of the school, the teachers are paid to teach. I am not aware of any schools (besides universities) that focus on research.

Why would someone who is interested in research want to teach, especially at the kindergarten through 12th grade level? It's hard for me to believe that a math teacher with an accounting background or a chemistry teacher who worked as a chemist for Eli-Lilly switched to teaching because they want to do research, especially at the kindergarten through 12th grade level. At universities, professors have teaching assistants who instruct in the classroom, freeing the professor up for research or other work. I do not believe this is the case in grades up through high school.

Regarding your comment on professionals who end up teaching versus licensed teachers, are you saying that only licensed teachers are qualified and have a desire to teach? I argue the mathematician who worked before teaching is more qualified than the teacher who spent years in school learning to teach. No school is going to hire someone right off the street without demonstrating they are able and willing to teach.

I don't understand why waiting lists are a problem. Private schools rely on tuition to pay the bills. They do not receive tax dollars as public schools do. Because of that, they need to have some degree of certainty that when they accept someone, that person will attend and pay tuition. Wait lists help ensure that those that are truly interested in attending get priority.

It is untrue to say "private education is truly meant for the elite people of the world". Examples of expensive schools are the ones that stick in our minds but that is not the rule. You either ignored parts of, or didn't entirely read, my previous comment. I showed that many private schools cost less than the $6000-7000 figure you give. There are many schools costing $3000 or less per year, before vouchers or tax credits are taken into account. A voucher or tax credit would only free up money for uniforms, lunch programs, transportation, etc.

I am not suggesting we eliminate public education tomorrow or get rid of licensed teachers. Private schools hire professional licensed teachers. I am suggesting we give alternative education a chance to compete, give parents the opportunity to choose. Allowing the different systems to compete will improve our educational system.

Teaching is more of an art...knowledge in the subject is only a part of the puzzle. I can recall having a couple math teachers that were ridiculously smart, yet couldn't teach...they couldn't relate the information to most of their students. Unfortunately, taking people with little to no background in teaching...leaves a big question mark on their ability to actually teach...I don't think intelligence would be the question.

I don't mind competition when it is on a level playing field. You give me a private school that has a similar student population to that of most public schools...I'd venture to say they will be putting out a similar product. The problem is that is nearly impossible. Private schools inherently take a different type of student. Whether it be the tuition or some type of entrance criteria...private schools don't have the same types of socioeconomic backgrounds.

That doesn't mean there aren't teachers that shouldn't be teaching...but it seems that is an issue in any field public or private. Unions get caught in this dilemna. They are there to protect teachers rights...but some probably don't deserve it.

After reading some other thoughts...it left me with a few questions/observations

1. I am curious to know the names and reputations of these private schools that are budget friendly. The few people i know that send their children to well respected private/parochial schools mention that they will invest close to 6 figures in education from K-12. SOme of these private schools may not be acredited by the state, which makes one wonder what they are/aren't learning. Just seems like there are way to many factors and bits of information that would need to be sorted to make an intelligent argument for or against.

2. cow rancher- What exactly happens to those that either by ability or environment don't rise to the top(students that is)?

3. What exactly makes a great school or teacher? Seems it is a pretty subjective opinion/argument. How exactly would one go about figuring this out. Sounds like the exact argument that produced our beloved ISTEP test.

Indiana spent $4.2 Billion (B as in Billion) in 2008 and is projected to spend $4.4 Billion in 2009 on education. So the $300 Million cut (M as in million) amounts to 7.1% of the total money we spent. $300 Million sounds like a lot. But it's a tiny fraction compared to the total education budget of over $4 Billion.

At first, I agreed that a cut in funding would harm public education. However, from the research I have done since my first comment (Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 6:43 PM) my view has changed. I understand that significantly reduced funding will harm education but I don't think a 7% cut will hurt much, if at all.

How much should we be spending on education? I can find no figures or research showing what an ideal amount would be.

Indiana spent over $4 Billion in 2008 on education, more than $9000 per student. How do we know if this number is adequate? Too much? Too little? What if we spent $1 million per student?

Everyone can agree that reducing the money spent on education to $0 would have a negative impact. Yet research shows that increasing money spent on education does nothing to improve our schools and students.

The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), a report by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, part of the U.S. Department of Education) shows that while we have doubled the amount we spend on education every 20-30 years since public education began, student performance has flat lined, neither improved nor declined.

The problem is not HOW much we spend but WHERE we spend.

We need to look for areas that are currently funded but have little or no benefit for students. One thing we can do to cut costs is drastically reduce bureaucracy. Between 1960 and 1984, the number of teachers grew by 57%; the number of principals grew by 79%. During the same period, the number of non-teaching positions grew by 500 percent!!!

Page 45, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1989, Table 35:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/eri...

The result is over centralization; many people with little or no direct contact with students, teachers, or principals (i.e. the schools) are making decisions affecting education and individual schools. This removes control of the classroom from teachers and principals while creating paperwork, protocols and other routines for educators that take the focus off the classroom. This also leaves our schools subject to influence from special interest groups, namely teachers unions, and makes it hard for citizens to make, let alone suggest, changes.

Bureaucracy diverts and consumes resources while reducing the authority and independence of teachers. Removing the bureaucracy would give teachers, principals, and schools more time in and control over the classroom and cut the cost of public education and improve student performance.

Another idea to save money is to have people who work in the school drive the school buses or give the bus drivers a meaningful job at the school. Maybe a janitor, lunch lady, or even a teacher or principal could drive a bus.

Indiana will cut $300 million from the education budget. But that's only 7% of the total funds spent on education. If we cut it from the right places (bureaucracy), we could cut and save much more while improving public education.