Rich School, Dumb School?

, Gabrielle Okun, 2 Comments

Although the U. S. spends more than half a trillion dollars on public schools, the Left still believes that raising that amount will somehow make students smarter.

“Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in the United States amounted to $638 billion in 2009-10, or about $12,743 per public school student,” according to the National Center for Education Statistics. “There must be a way to get enough dollars, public dollars to raise student achievement,” Carmel Martin, Executive Vice President for Policy at The Center for American Progress (CAP), said at a recent conference at CAP.

At that same conference, backspace U. S. Rep.  Chaka Fattah (D-PA) alleged that, “poor children receive less dollars which continues the cycle of poverty.”  Similarly, at CAP, Alice Cain of Teach Plus said that “there is a human element of [our] message to kids to restore allocation” of funds from Title I programs to aid low-income schools. (The Department of Education has been giving out $14 billion in grants per year during the Obama years with another $10 billion thrown in from the 2009 stimulus package.)

Ironically, Ulrich Boser, of CAP, claimed that “low productivity can cost the school system billions,” and found, to his surprise, that the wealthiest school districts had the lowest productivity.

  • pekin

    So, if TAX PAYER’S (US) fund public schools…WHY can’t We kick the Government Out??? NO MORE STIMULUS $$$$

  • terry1956

    total US government ( federal, state and local) spending on education according to the website US government spending is 1 trillion a year.
    There are around 5 million new born a year if half a trillion was divided between each and put into a trust fund in the stock market that would be 100,000 dollars for each new born.
    The website money chimp reports that the S& P 500 following of stocks ( the actual S&P 500 did not start until the 1950s) since 1871 shows over a 9% return average annual with dividends reinvested ( geometric returns that is which is usually lower than arithmetic returns).
    An average return of 9% is a doubling an average of around every 8 years so that 100,000 dollars placed in the trust fund would be worth 3.2 million at age 40 or 6.4 million for a couple.
    If only 100 billion or 10% of the 1 trillion was placed in such trust funds that still would be 20,000 each and with an average net return of 9% per year then by age 40 each trust fund would still have 640,000 dollars or 1.28 million per man and wife.
    With at least 1.28 million net assets per family there would be no need for that generation and future generations for government subsidy of education, retirement, healthcare, food, housing, welfare, social services.
    At the 6.4 million dollar level of course the kids could support their parents, older brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles and grandparents so there would be no need for social security/ medicare for this generation because even with just a 5% annual net return that would be 320,000 a year for the family without touching the 6.4 million principle.
    Of course the 1.28 million may be enough since an average annual 9% return would be 115,200 a year, even only 5% would be 64,000 a year.
    So instead of 100 billion a year for the trust funds on that first new born generation 250billion or 25% of current government spending on education is placed in the trust funds.
    That would give the new born family 3.2 million by age 40 with an average annual income of at least 160,000 up to 288,000 or more without touching the principle which could be passed to the next generation.
    250 billion for 20 years would be 5 trillion in total spending
    Only government spending on public goods would be necessary afterwards.
    Total government spending is over 6 trillion dollars but spending on actual public goods ( defense, police, courts, jails/prisons, roads and public transportation) is less than 1.8 trillion .
    Lets say the savings would be 4 trillion a year afterwards that would be 80 trillion for the first 20 years but the social security trust fund has a 75 year time line so 4 trillion in savings for 75 years would be 300 trillion in savings.
    I would say 295 billion in net savings but we were going to spend the 5 trillion anyway so just take that 250 billion a year for 20 years out of the 1 trillion a year in government education subsidy.
    You know 750 billion a year for 50 million kids between the ages of 5 and 17 is still 15,000 a year for each versus the 20,000 each with 1 trillion in spending.
    Eliminate the 100 billion in federal spending would still give an average of 13,000 per year for the 50 million.
    Spend 20% on disabled kids and adults and about 1,400 each to pay off bond debts and you still could give a 9,000 dollar per year voucher for the average child.
    Which they can use to go to a private school, to a church school or public school or home school.
    any savings would be placed in a trust fund for the child.
    if the average savings a year per child by the parents is 4,000 a year for 13 years that would make the trust fund worth over 100,000 dollars by the time the child becomes an adult with an average net return of 9% a year ( the average has been higher since 1871 remember).
    Yeah I know some of that is for post high school but its not necessary to spend on those not disabled over 17 years old except promised GI benefits.
    GI benefits at the US government spending ( a non government website) is included in the defense spending slot anyway.
    One Hundred billion is about what the federal government spends per year on education which of course it should not be spending anything except for GI benefits, troop and federal employee training.