Author Topic: [NEWS] Annoying Orange cutting budgets of public school programs by 6 billion, afterschool (Read 11111 times)

Conan · March 17, 2017, 07:28:25 PM

Quote from: Tactical Nuke on March 17, 2017, 07:23:48 PM

it's incentive to not be wasteful with the money that we're giving them

it would be good to show some statistics/sources for that. there are certainly many underfunded schools that perform spectacularly, but there are also similar numbers of well-funded schools that do do well.

funding alone wont help provide good education. a lot of it has to do with the community the school is based in, and their views and approach to education and how much they see its worth their time. high achieving districts tend to have a high concentration of parents who value education highly and push their children to do better. having more funding helps those schools provide better education to their students.

and it still doesn't explain how its an incentive. its like telling a child "you cannot eat candy from now on" and consider it an incentive for them to do better in their little league team without promising any return of such privilege if they do well.

Ad Bot · Advertisement

King T�ny · March 17, 2017, 07:30:43 PM

Candy isn't good for kids.

Nonnel · March 17, 2017, 07:31:33 PM

Are you Willy Wonka's dad

Tactical Nuke · March 17, 2017, 07:42:56 PM

Quote from: King T�ny on March 17, 2017, 07:28:14 PM

He just needed to loving budget cut these over budget stuff.

go home Tony you're drunk again

SeventhSandwich · March 18, 2017, 12:16:46 AM

Quote from: Badspot on March 17, 2017, 05:05:22 PM

School spending does not correlate at all with student achievement. In fact often it's the opposite, the highest spending schools have the lowest achievement. This sounds like a good cut of bad spending.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey had the same idea and approved stuffloads of cuts in state education spending a couple years ago. I went to one of the best high schools in the state and we still had to fire teachers and cut programs as a result.

Blockomaniac · March 18, 2017, 12:24:16 AM

Quote from: SeventhSandwich on March 18, 2017, 12:16:46 AM

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey had the same idea and approved stuffloads of cuts in state education spending a couple years ago. I went to one of the best high schools in the state and we still had to fire teachers and cut programs as a result.

which one was it? mine's kinda similar but idk if its the result of cuts

SeventhSandwich · March 18, 2017, 12:27:59 AM

Quote from: Blockomaniac on March 18, 2017, 12:24:16 AM

which one was it? mine's kinda similar but idk if its the result of cuts

As far as I know, it impacted almost every public high school.

Badspot · March 18, 2017, 12:53:33 AM

Quote from: SeventhSandwich on March 18, 2017, 12:16:46 AM

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey had the same idea and approved stuffloads of cuts in state education spending a couple years ago. I went to one of the best high schools in the state and we still had to fire teachers and cut programs as a result.

Ok. Is this supposed to be countering my point or agreeing with it? Arizona has the 3rd lowest spending per student and is 27th in SAT scores. New York spends nearly 3 times as much and is 42nd in SAT scores. Cost of living in New York is only ~37% higher than Arizona. Student spending is just waste.

SeventhSandwich · March 18, 2017, 12:57:16 AM

Quote from: Badspot on March 18, 2017, 12:53:33 AM

Ok. Is this supposed to be countering my point or agreeing with it? Arizona has the 3rd lowest spending per student and is 27th in SAT scores.

Countering it. What you're saying is that spending poorly correlates with academic achievement, so we should cut spending since it won't hurt nor help their achievement.

In other words, you're trying to say that because overall spending doesn't correlate with academic achievement, then changes in overall spending won't correlate with changes in academic achievement. And that's not actually true. If my high school did well regardless of its level of funding, then why was it hurt by spending cuts?

Badspot · March 18, 2017, 01:01:49 AM

The amount doesn't matter. Therefore changing to a different amount will not matter.

SeventhSandwich · March 18, 2017, 01:03:25 AM

Quote from: Badspot on March 18, 2017, 01:01:49 AM

The amount doesn't matter. Therefore changing to a different amount will not matter.

I think that if we were talking about like, bureaucratic waste, then changing it to a different amount wouldn't matter. They've done audits of school systems and, like every other department in government, they waste stuffloads of money.

But when you drop gigantic cuts across the board, that money also comes out of teachers salaries, AP programs, school orchestras, and school facility repairs. How can you actually say that cutting those parts of education isn't going to hurt students?

BlackMod · March 18, 2017, 01:12:19 AM

Anyone who still supports Annoying Orange at this point is mentally ill lol.

Badspot · March 18, 2017, 01:15:43 AM

Your argument is literally that because school systems waste stuffloads of money, we should give them more money. Like because a homeless guy spends all his money on crack and can't afford food, so we should give him more money. So he can buy crack and food. How about we stop throwing money away and the crack addicts can forget off. The federal government shouldn't even be involved in schools at all. The department of education should be dissolved.

SeventhSandwich · March 18, 2017, 01:23:57 AM

Quote from: Badspot on March 18, 2017, 01:15:43 AM

Your argument is literally that because school systems waste stuffloads of money, we should give them more money.

No, I think that if we want to approve more funding for schools, we have to be more careful about where it goes to. Less hiring more pencil pushers in the department offices, more hiring of good teachers and funding student enrichment programs. Hell, if we put the money into better music education and technology, there is a huge body of research out there which suggests it would help student outcomes.

But you aren't saying 'cut the money off from the wasteful parts', you're saying 'cut the money off from everything'. The policy that you're supporting here is literally just the inverted-version of bad education spending hikes. It's just changing funding all across the board without really paying attention to where the money goes.

Quote from: Badspot on March 18, 2017, 01:15:43 AM

The federal government shouldn't even be involved in schools at all. The department of education should be dissolved.

yeah because market principles work really well at improving QoL for people that can't pay for the fancy private schools /s

I've seen the future of 'school vouchers', and it's going to hurt American educational achievement even worse than bureaucratic waste. Our Republican government in Arizona loves to raise up Basis Scottsdale on a pedestal for what Arizona students can be if we just make everyone go to charters and private schools, but what they won't tell you is that they kick out any student that doesn't pass precalculus before entering high school.

So yeah, maybe we'll see growth in the top 10% of students, but huge numbers of kids will drop out who could have otherwise gotten a high school diploma at a properly-funded public high school. What a great improvement.

Red Spy · March 18, 2017, 01:27:14 AM

Quote from: BlackMod on March 18, 2017, 01:12:19 AM

Anyone who still supports Annoying Orange at this point is mentally ill lol.

What a cohesive post