S/o of having less kids...

amother

Cobalt

Sun, Oct 04 2015, 11:54 am

Laiya wrote:

I think this would be true in some locales, less so in others. Or the adjustment period would be longer than reasonable. Why do public schools spend avg. $18,000 per year per student? Because of bloat, waste, bureaucracy, etc.

But you're probably right that it wouldn't happen.

Although there is some bureaucracy in public schools, the reality is that it costs $18,000 or more on average to educate a child. Secular private schools and good MO schools spend far more per pupil as reflected in tuition. To the extent that costs in many Jewish schools is less than that, it is because teachers are not paid a "living" wage and there aren't programs which many educators feel are helpful. And of course, that's an average figure which means that it also takes into account the actual cost to educate more "expensive" students.

The benefit to public school systems of an influx of middle class, non problematic students with concerned parents far outweighs what it would cost to educate those students or any momentary demographic bumps. The school systems generally receive aid from the Federal and State based on number of pupils so additional money would come into the public school system.

Public schools in most places would welcome an influx of frum students - or other comparable students now in private schools because they would be attached to parents who would care very much about the schools and work to make them better. It's not so clear in a place like NYC where the schools are supported largely by a commercial tax base but in suburbs or small towns, having people whose children are being educated in schools supported by property tax generally means that the schools are supported more generously because people have a vested interest in them - or they have a vested interest in property values which are generally higher in areas which have excellent public schools. Also, individual schools benefit from parental involvement which is more common in areas with middle class/upper middle class people.

And since Judaism is a minority religion, one should be careful what one wishes for. The First Amendment which prevents government support of religious institutions in this area also provides protection for the right to practice one's religion. I am over-simplifying since there are areas in which religious institutions are given "breaks" (I.e. tax exemptions or some type of aid for private school students that is non-religious) and also areas in which one can't claim your religion gives you free rein (I.e. polygamy).

Laiya

Sun, Oct 04 2015, 12:06 pm

Squishy wrote:

You can channel the tzeduka where it is needed. One diamond eternity band for a bar mitzvah moma can educate 3 children for a year. No one woke up and decided to give the mama the band. They were asked.

I think the very large majority of the people would give money to educate Jewish children rather than give to support ridiculous conspicuous consumption especially with their massur money.

The burden needs to be spread.

It can't be that someone else with a pedigree and experience won't come up with the idea to start a school without scholarships. I would find such a partner if I had young children because that school could skim those that are forced to support the rest and are struggling precisely because of that reason.

Are you saying the mamas should be asking dh to give money to schools, rather than buying them jewelry?

Maybe so, but again, how can the community or its leadership compel this?

Amarante

Sun, Oct 04 2015, 12:23 pm

Laiya wrote:

Are you saying the mamas should be asking dh to give money to schools, rather than buying them jewelry?

Maybe so, but again, how can the community or its leadership compel this?

I am not the poster but, based on other threads, there seems to be charity asked for expensive items of conspicuous consumption.

People seem divided as many want their support used for worthier stuff like education or real needs for the poor like food, shelter, utilities since however you calculate, there is a finite amount of money and so if you use charitable contributions for expensive discretionary items, there is less to support items that should be given higher priority like education.

Others feel that charity should be used for expensive clothing or jewelry so the recipient fits in with the more affluent members of the community. Others who take no charity and don't buy expensive consumer goods for their family feel this is a waste and feel slightly repelled by the value system which endorses consumer consumption.

I don't think anyone feels someone who can afford nice things should live like a pauper and give all their money to charity.

SRS

Sun, Oct 04 2015, 1:27 pm

Laiya wrote:

Pensions, Unions, Special Education, Bloat, Waste, Smaller Classrooms, Districts that are too large, Districts that are too small, funding universal pre-K versus not, busing kids around. . . and then things just cost and until you've been inside a school budget, you would not even realize just how much. . .insurance, payroll taxes, unemployment premiums, janitorial supplies, utilities, legal. . .

Now regarding spending, the US average is about 11K per kid and most states are right around that average. The outliers are mostly schools with small populations and a large state (Wyoming and Alaksa) or your East Coast Schools (Mass, NY, NJ, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, District of Columbia) and I can't speak for each state in that high cost list, but New York funds has a lot of districts and pours a ton into special ed and private schools despite complaints . . . . .

Frum schools are averaging about what public schools are and above in many cases without spending nearly what public schools are on staffing, without sports and vocational programs. . . just something to think about in my opinion (and I believe government is the last place you look for when it comes to efficiency).

You can look up state spending. It varies a lot by state and it is not at all indicative of performance. Utah spending just over $6500 while New York is nearly $20,000 per student. That is a wide range. But most schools are still closer to the 11K.

33055

Sun, Oct 04 2015, 4:12 pm

Kugglegirl wrote:

regarding how Lakewood funds the schools, I know for a fact that the boys' system goes for outside fundraising. The Lakewood Cheder rep comes to my door once a year to ask for my $$$. So they are not all "paying their own way."

That's ok IMO because they are not limiting their efforts to parents who have to pay their own tuition. It is the burden of subsidizing the majority of students on a few shoulders that I object to.

None of us want to limit our lives to pay our bills although it is the responsible thing to do. When we end up limiting our own lives to pay the bill for others who don't have similar restraints, it is particularly galling.

sourstix

Sun, Oct 04 2015, 4:19 pm

btw woman dont have a chiyuv of having children. its the mens mitzva. so they are dependant on us. but if you cant handle it then you cant. thats my opinion. I dont think hashem wants us to just have kids and not be responsible for them. responsible means diff things to diff people. I think this is a discussion that will never end. its a loaded question. do the best you can thats what hashem wants from us. we are in a generation of physically and mentally/emotionally weak people. and so we need to exercize caution before we do something as hard as having more children. I dont know if g-d will punish me for not having more. I think g-d wants me to do the best I can. noones business what that means. its between me and g-d

Laiya

Tue, Oct 06 2015, 11:12 pm

amother wrote:

There are aprx. 250,000 non-public school students in NYC; double that in NY State. At $20,000 per student, if only the NYC students were to enroll in public schools, that would cost the city an additional $5 billion. Jewish students in NYC comprise 95,000. So even if only the Jewish students were to enroll in public schools, it would still cost the city an additional $1.9 billion.

How much additional federal or state funding would cover that sum? Obviously no one can answer that, but I imagine there would be a shortfall.

Regardless, I know it’ll never happen. Sad

I disagree with you regarding First Amendment issues. The argument is not that the government should sponsor religious instruction, but that citizens should not be forced to sponsor other children's education from which their own children receive no benefit.

5mom

Wed, Oct 07 2015, 1:07 am

Laiya wrote:

You pay for a fire department even if you've never had a fire. Childless people pay school taxes. We look for the greater good for the society as a whole. Having an educated population benefits us all, so everyone has to chip in.

As far as religious instruction, the frum community is far too invested in the notion that government ought to pay. This is incredibly short sighted. There's a good reason for separation of church and state. Do you really want your tax dollars going to fund ISIS day schools? They have as much claim as yeshivas do.

SRS

Wed, Oct 07 2015, 1:46 am

Laiya wrote:

This type of math is very elementary and leads to the conclusion you want, but isn't based in reality. You ignore fixed and variable costs. You ignore that the most expensive to educate students are already being covered by public funds. You ignore that there are very heavily frum areas that are not operating at optimal because the public schools are not populated appropriately.

There are plenty of arguments for vouchers. But it is high time to depart with this silliness that school district x, y, or z will just throw vouchers at private school parents because they won't be able to manage the influx is just silliness.

SRS

Wed, Oct 07 2015, 2:00 am

Laiya wrote:

I see frum people constantly try to pull the card out, but at the same time complain that grandparents, who have paid their own children's way through yeshivas, should be doing more for frum schools today.

I believe that majority of taxpayers for the majority of their taxpaying years will not see direct benefit from their taxpaying dollars. Let's make a little example. A couple marries straight out of college (age 22) and starts paying income taxes and property taxes in the same year (they buy a starter condo with gifts from parents). At age 25, they start a family (2 kids-US fertility rate is 1.9- 2 years apart). From age 30 until 50 they have at least one child in public school. At age 85 and no longer pay property tax or income tax.

For 63 years they paid income and property tax. They had at least one child in public school for a period of 20 years. So 70% of their tax paying years, they were "forced to sponsor other children's education from which their own children receive no benefit."

No, this is not a solid argument for vouchers. Not at all.

Friends, if vouchers is your thing and you want to make the case for vouchers, think about the case you want to make! There are many good arguments for either vouchers or for the money following the child, but much of what I see presented as a convincing argument for vouchers is only convincing in the echo chamber.

m in Israel

Wed, Oct 07 2015, 2:06 am

Laiya wrote:

Your math is faulty. When the statistics say a district spends $20,000 per student, it doesn't mean that the cost of adding an additional child is $20,000! That number means that if you take the total budget and divide it by the number of students, it is X amount per student. But the vast majority of those costs do not increase exponentially according to the number of students. A principal's salary doesn't change if the school enrollment increases by 15% -- buildings don't cost significantly more to maintain if they are partially full or totally full, etc. If anything, the overall cost per student goes down as the fixed expenses are spread out over more students (I.e. a teacher with 25 students in her class is more "expensive" than one with 35 students).

LittleDucky

Wed, Oct 07 2015, 2:47 am

m in Israel wrote:

This. The first student costs the most- every student after that decreases the per student cost, until you need another teacher, classroom etc. Plus, so many kids get services through the PS system. Evaluations, therapies etc...Even if they don't go to the school. Does that count into their budget? What about the super expensive kids- those in high needs classrooms, the teachers that work in hospitals, in prisons etc- are those counted? Prison teachers probably get "hazard pay". I know an ill child who gets a public school teacher to come to her house. In NY. Too sick to go to school and it's a long term issue. That teacher gets a salary but only teaches one at a time. And has travel time costs, down time...
The average kid doesn't cost 20,000.