Hacker News Reader

Comment by yellow_postit | Hacker News Reader

This is great for many of the projects but there's a down side to donors choose I wouldn't have realized before taking to some teachers. Anecdote warning: family member works in a public school district where the principal and committees won't even investigate funding requests till the teacher has put something up on donorschoose.

View on HN

It really sucks that American public schools are so poorly funded. But maybe the principal and committees are just "playing the game" appropriately from their perspective. I doubt they have beanbag chairs full of cash that they're hoarding.

I could see a scenario where, sure, the teacher's proposal is great. But what makes their proposal any better than the thousand others that cannot be funded?

They aren't poorly funded. I live in a suburban / rural area. The public schools here get ~$15,700 per student. Good private schools here charge ~$10,000 per student, and yet offer much better education with 2/3 the funding.

Where do you live? The private schools may also get funding, and public schools have much higher expenses for special needs students etc. who are often not allowed to enroll at private schools.

Several private schools I know in west coast burbs get by on <$10k and actually have higher staff ratios and more autistic kids than standard schools (many parents need the refuge because the public schools are especially ill-suited to the needs of many families with kids on the spectrum).

The point, though, is that there is an incredible amount of bloat in the public system. Funding amounts themselves are not a primary problem, though perhaps allocation of funding is!

It's not hard to find examples of inefficient spending in education (the depiction of Newark Public Schools in "The Prize" is particularly poignant), nor is it hard to find examples of dramatic underfunding (just ask any teacher in a low income area). But anecdotes on either side of the equation don't really lead us to correct policy.

There are costs to operating a school district that have increased dramatically in the past 30 years (most significantly: employee benefits, special education compliance) and have not been met with comparable increases in funding. Additionally, we've dramatically raised the expectations we have for schools (holding schools accountable for "No Child Left Behind" and raising the rigor of instruction with the Common Core & new assessments).

From this vantage point, it seems clear to me that we need to either narrow the scope of what we ask schools to do or increase funding to meet additional burdens. And it'd be nice if we can improve operational efficiency while we do this...

Right. The US spends more per student than most similar countries.

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-US.pd...

Here's my suspicion, coming from a long line of teachers, and I had an article to support this recently but I'm having trouble finding it right now - spending includes not just what the government/taxpayers are spending, but what teachers and students are spending, because in this insane system we have, somehow teachers getting 45k/year (hah, if that) are having to dip into their salaries to get whiteboard markers and notebooks for their kids that can't afford it. Meanwhile, parents are footing the bill for all the other supplies.

Non communal education means costs are spread out means they're higher. The government could bulk purchase, for example, notebooks, at pennies. Instead, students have to get packs of them at a couple bucks. I know this won't be the case for everyone here, but some of you reading this might have the thought, "a couple bucks, really? Just skip starbucks for a couple days!" I recommend you read "Evicted" and learn a bit more about poverty in America if you have these thoughts, or we can email and chat more about it.

In any case, yea, education costs more here for the same reason healthcare does - America is caught between forward-thinking longterm investors that know that a healthy, educated populace is good for the economy, and, well I don't know what shitty excuse the other side is using lately but they're about short term gains and spreading costs among private individuals rather than communising them.

How much of that is being spent on things entirely irrelevant to education, such as administration, "school sports" aka baseball/football stadiums and other amenities?

As much as I hated my HS principal, you still need administration. Sports, are underutilized and also needed by healthy humans. Sure, some schools disproportionately spend on sports, but they are in the minority, and tend to self fund. Why not kill art, music programs too? Just email assignments and hope for the best...

Many private schools run fundraisers throughout the year, so that cost is likely subsidized.

Public schools also run fundraisers, and most families seem to understand that these funds give their children a competitive edge that other schools may not be able to offer (after school programs, supplies, teaching assistants for lower grade levels, etc.).

Public schools spend a ton of that on disabled students though.

Here is the relevant data for my city:

https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2016/berkeley/

Is there some story behind why the highest paid individual in the entire city is a "fire apparatus operator"?

He pretty much doubled his salary with overtime.

And there are way too many city salaries over $200k in my opinion. Judging by the job descriptions and requisite educations for those jobs, I'd say they are way, way over market rates.

In what fantasyland do you need to pay $250k a year to find and retain a talented individual to be an "EMT supervisor"?

How is that a downside? It's too bad that schools are underfunded and can't meet every funding request, but given that is the current state of affairs why not post a grant request on donors choose? It's not that difficult, and some projects that have no chance of getting funding from the annual school budget have a pretty decent chance of getting funding online.

My wife's school strongly suggests that she submit a project every year. If it's funded, good for her and the students in her classroom. It's also good for the school since they can then allocate available funding for infrastructure or larger programmatic support (e.g. ESL, special needs, etc.). It's not that the administrator doesn't want to fund her projects, it's just that her requests sit in a huge pile of unfunded requests and something has to give.

Source: wife is a teacher who has successfully funded projects through donors choose.

because it should be up to a knowledgeable central body of experts whose job it is to decide how best to allocate education money in order to do the most good

not arbitrary private citizens who see a “good idea” (that might turn out to just sound like a good idea) that helps a small segment of the population

*edit: i’m saying if you fix the education system, take that donor money and then make it available to all then everyone could benefit equally without having to beg for scraps for literally a countries future generations

  How is that a downside?

Imagine a corrupt foreign dictatorship. The ruler was planning to spend $x building a school for orphans, when foreign donors donated $x to build a school for orphans. This saves the dictator $x which he spends building a mansion for the chief of the army.

Have the foreign donors actually built a school? Or have they built a mansion for the army chief?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com