[ldrews]

From Wikipedia:

The United States spends more per student on education than any other country.[8] In 2014, the Pearson/Economist Intelligence Unit rated US education as 14th best in the world, just behind Russia.[9] According to a report published by the U.S. News & World Report, of the top ten colleges and universities in the world, eight are American.[10] (The other two are Oxford and Cambridge, in the United Kingdom.)

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-January-12, 18:37, said:

Do you agree that, <...>

Do you agree that every child in is entitled to an equal level of education (under the 14th) and that funding is a critical indicator of whether such equality exists?

[kenberg]

Elianna, on 2017-January-12, 16:58, said:

My point wasn't that if schools were funded equally everything would be sunshine and roses. It was that IF funding equally was the goal, then relying ONLY on property taxes of the area of the school is ridiculous. I also wanted to refute the claim that all that is needed to equalize funding of schools is for poor areas to raise property taxes and show why that won't work.

From your table it seems that the state of MD supplements per student to attempt to bring all counties up to some level, but does not attempt to equalize. CA does the same (although it operates on a per district rather than per county basis) but our minimum is lower than yours. According to the state of CA for '16-'17 it is about 10,600, but I really thought it was $9,000 because the district is supposed to pay us the minimum per student and that's what we get so perhaps those numbers are different for different grade levels? But anyway, it's still about $2200 less than your lowest county.

When I was in high school during the first Eisenhower term there was a very active debate about federal funding for education. I don't recall who was on which side, but I have a "this is where I came in" feeling. The biggest issue was whether federal funding was consistent with local control. Probably that is still a big issue. Anther issue is fairness, or perceived fairness. It would be nice if a county would do what they reasonably can, and then the state/feds would add to that to equalize the result or even provide extra for those districts with a lare number of disadvantaged students. But I would guess, and it is just a guess, that if one made a table of county wealth and ran a correlation with educational support from the county, the result would be positive but not all that large. If the state will make up the difference, there is a strong tendency to say "fine, let them".

I guess if the problem were easy to solve, we wouldn't still be looking at the same puzzle we looked at when I was an adolescent.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2017-January-13, 07:57, said:

When I was in high school during the first Eisenhower term there was a very active debate about federal funding for education.

One of the landmark cases in American education history took place in 1954 so it is not as all surprising that this was a topical subject at that time.

[Zelandakh]

Sadly much of the positive effect of that ruling was undone 19-20 years later in the other critical SC case in this area. It is probably that the US education system would look considerably different today if this decision had gone the other way and almost certain that the overall results would be much better today in that case.

[jogs]

I'm anti-progressive left. Am pro free markets, anti socialism. We are given a binary choice. I'm not allowed to vote for John Stossel. So it's for Hillary or against Hillary.
Both Obama and Hillary disparage Americans, while praising Muslims. Half of Muslims in America believe in Sharia Law. Sharia is a set of moral codes which practices human right abuses.
Therefore I think the democratic party took a wrong turn this century.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2017-January-13, 09:30, said:

Half of Muslims in America believe in Sharia Law. Sharia is a set of moral codes which practices human right abuses.
Therefore I think the democratic party took a wrong turn this century.

You seriously based your vote for one of the most important decisions you will make for a while on a perception of less than 0.5% of the population? And that is without knowing the background of the relevant poll.

[hrothgar]

jogs, on 2017-January-13, 09:30, said:

Both Obama and Hillary disparage Americans, while praising Muslims.

This may strain your world view, but in many cases Americans deserve to be disparaged and there are muslims who deserve praise.
More over, the sets "Americans' and "Muslims" are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that that your world view collapses down to this inane Manichaeism tells me more more than I need to know about your odious little excuse for a brain.

(BTW, given the idiocy of the first half of the posting, we could have guessed Libertarian and Fox Business viewer)

[Winstonm]

libertarian=disgruntled ex-government employee

[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-January-13, 09:30, said:

I'm anti-progressive left. Am pro free markets, anti socialism. We are given a binary choice. I'm not allowed to vote for John Stossel. So it's for Hillary or against Hillary.
Both Obama and Hillary disparage Americans, while praising Muslims. Half of Muslims in America believe in Sharia Law. Sharia is a set of moral codes which practices human right abuses.
Therefore I think the democratic party took a wrong turn this century.

O.K., you've described a fear of socialism and a fear of Muslims - what other fears drive your decision-making processes?

[olegru]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-13, 07:33, said:

Do you agree that every child in is entitled to an equal level of education (under the 14th)

No. Every child under the age of 14th is entitled to an opportunity to get education not worse that some level.
Nobody is entitle to limit possibility of education of other children in order to maintain "equal level of education" for everybody.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-13, 08:50, said:

One of the landmark cases in American education history took place in 1954 so it is not as all surprising that this was a topical subject at that time.

This connection had not occurred to me but no doubt the Brown decision played a role in the discussion of how to fund education. I was aware of Brown, of course, but for St. Paul in 1954 it was a distant event so I did not make a connection then to the discussion about funding, and laer I didn't think back about it. I think I was vaguely, but only vaguely, aware of the Rodriguez case when it happened.

It seems to me that the right answer to Rodriguez is this: Even if it is within the Constitution to underfund schools, it's a really bad idea. Bad for everyone. Really bad for everyone. It seems to me this is where we have missed the boat. Arguing about the right to an education can get into abstraction. But the benefit to the country of having our kids well-educated seems not at all abstract, it's totally obvious.

But not to everyone. Some years back I was down by a lake and there was a political event. I was just there for the lake, but might as well speak up. The campaign manager for a candidate for governor was there so I introduced myself and said that I wanted to talk about educational funding, both generally and for the University of Maryland. I'm from the University? Great. He wanted to talk about the basketball team.

[Zelandakh]

olegru, on 2017-January-13, 11:51, said:

No. Every child under the age of 14th is entitled to an opportunity to get education not worse that some level.
Nobody is entitle to limit possibility of education of other children in order to maintain "equal level of education" for everybody.

The 14th is an amendment. You might like to read it to understand the point.

[olegru]

Well, your point is still wrong, and nothing in 14th Amendment confirms it

Quote

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[ldrews]

Quote

Do you agree that every child in is entitled to an equal level of education (under the 14th) and that funding is a critical indicator of whether such equality exists?

If I as a parent wish to spend my excess disposable income to enhance the quality of my child's education, should I be permitted to do so? And if so, then my child would receive a better education than that provided by the state, and would violate your condition above. The other children would not be entitled to an equal level of education that I provide my child.

Now, if you asserting that the level of education provided by the state should be equal for all children, then the political reality is that that level would be a minimum. That would be so because politically aware parents would want to preserve as much money/resources as possible to giver their own children an advantage. I know I certainly would.

Also there are some other difficulties in providing an equal level of education to all children. How can we assure that the quality of teaching is the same? That external factors are the same (blizzards shutting down schools, etc.)?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-13, 17:22, said:

If I as a parent wish to spend my excess disposable income to enhance the quality of my child's education, should I be permitted to do so? And if so, then my child would receive a better education than that provided by the state, and would violate your condition above. The other children would not be entitled to an equal level of education that I provide my child.

Now, if you asserting that the level of education provided by the state should be equal for all children, then the political reality is that that level would be a minimum. That would be so because politically aware parents would want to preserve as much money/resources as possible to giver their own children an advantage. I know I certainly would.

Also there are some other difficulties in providing an equal level of education to all children. How can we assure that the quality of teaching is the same? That external factors are the same (blizzards shutting down schools, etc.)?

Comment 1: I suspect that Zelandakh miss spoke and intended to state that all children should be provided with the opportunity to achieve some minimum level of education.

Comment 2: I don't have any objection to parents using excess disposable income to educate their children. Indeed, I consider it a laudable goal. With this said and done, I don't consider your desirable to provide an advantage to your children to be a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes

Comment 3: Education is a "public good", by which I mean that not all of the benefits from education are captured by the individual spending the money. Society as a whole captures a wide variety of benefits from having an educated population. As such, private individuals tend to under invest in education and a rational society will chose to taxes its members as to achieve a better societal outcome.

Comment 4: You took advantage of the education that the US provided to you, then chose to run of to Mexico to avoid contributing back to the society that lent you a hand. Your choice. I think that we as a country are better off with out you. Just wish that your shut the ***** up rather than lecturing us about what a greedy bastard you are...

[ldrews]

Quote

Comment 2: I don't have any objection to parents using excess disposable income to educate their children. Indeed, I consider it a laudable goal. With this said and done, I don't consider your desirable to provide an advantage to your children to be a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes

Comment 3: Education is a "public good", by which I mean that not all of the benefits from education are captured by the individual spending the money. Society as a whole captures a wide variety of benefits from having an educated population. As such, private individuals tend to under invest in education and a rational society will chose to taxes its members as to achieve a better societal outcome.

Comment 4: You took advantage of the education that the US provided to you, then chose to run of to Mexico to avoid contributing back to the society that lent you a hand. Your choice. I think that we as a country are better off with out you. Just wish that your shut the ***** up rather than lecturing us about what a greedy bastard you are...

You seem to have a problem with someone who does not march the way you think they should march. Is this a common occurrence for you?

Comment 2: I don't need a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes. As Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand said: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."

Comment 3: Education is not legally a "public good". No more than "jobs" are a public good, even though the public benefits from people having jobs. I am not a pawn, servant, or slave of the public. If you wish to volunteer for such positions, be my guest.

Comment 4: Fortunately my vote counts the same as yours. What you call greed I call enlightened self-interest. The same self-interest that motivated millions of people to settle the US, build businesses, and feed their families. Apparently you do not have the same appreciation of those efforts that I do.

I worked for 60 years in the US building the ancestors of the very software you are probably using today. Often 60-80 hours/week. I think I have paid my dues. How about you? Have you contributed anything to society besides an arrogant attitude?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-13, 19:04, said:

Comment 2: I don't need a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes. As Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand said: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."

I agree completely. You have a legal right to do whatever you damn well please.
And I have a legal right to think less of you for it...

Quote

Comment 3: Education is not legally a "public good". No more than "jobs" are a public good, even though the public benefits from people having jobs. I am not a pawn, servant, or slave of the public. If you wish to volunteer for such positions, be my guest.

It would be ever so helpful if you knew what basic expressions like "public good" mean. Please let me know when you're actually prepared to discuss this topic.

Quote

I worked for 60 years in the US building the ancestors of the very software you are probably using today. Often 60-80 hours/week. I think I have paid my dues. How about you? Have you contributed anything to society besides an arrogant attitude?

Really not sure what this is supposed to prove...

It almost seems as if you think that we should be comparing paycheck size or number of years before we expect to die as a measure of worth...

[ldrews]

From wikipedia:

Quote

In economics, a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others.[1] Gravelle and Rees: "The defining characteristic of a public good is that consumption of it by one individual does not actually or potentially reduce the amount available to be consumed by another individual." In a non-economic sense, the term is often used to describe something that is useful for the public generally, such as education and infrastructure, although these are not "public goods" in the economic sense. This is in contrast to a common good which is non-excludable but is rivalrous to a certain degree.

Comment?

[ldrews]

Quote

Comment 4: You took advantage of the education that the US provided to you, then chose to run of to Mexico to avoid contributing back to the society that lent you a hand. Your choice. I think that we as a country are better off with out you. Just wish that your shut the ***** up rather than lecturing us about what a greedy bastard you are...

Well, first you allege that I took advantage of education provided to me and then avoided contributing back to society. Do you think 60 years of labor in the US qualifies for "contributing back"? Then I ask you for an example of your contribution which you have evaded. So I ask again, what have you contributed back?

Second, you engage in character assassination by calling me a "greedy bastard". Your attitude of arrogance and lack of civility shine through, don't you think?

But that is ok, continue to evade.