Parents want kid with peanut allergy removed from school

[mookiemookie]

Some public school parents in Edgewater, Florida, want a first-grade girl with life-threatening peanut allergies removed from the classroom and home-schooled, rather than deal with special rules to protect her health, a school official said.

...

To protect the girl, students in her class at Edgewater Elementary School are required to wash their hands before entering the classroom in the morning and after lunch, and rinse out their mouths, Wait said, and a peanut-sniffing dog checked out the school during last week's spring break.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-peanut-allergy-idUSTRE72L7AQ20110322

Making kids to wash their hands more is unreasonable? I think it's great!

Also, is it just me or are food allergies more prevalent? I don't remember ever hearing about kids dying from peanut allergies when I was a kid - we had peanuts and peanut butter all the time at school and no one ever keeled over.

[Gerald]

Times change, many other foods also contain traces of nuts that can be or are harmful to health

[AVGWarhawk]

had peanuts and peanut butter all the time at school and no one ever keeled over.


Just wonder how the hell we survived. :doh: I would have to say the hand washing is ok. The sniffing dog and washing mouth is over the line. What next, fumigation before entry? If the girl is that allergic perhaps it is best to be home schooled.

[mookiemookie]

Just wonder how the hell we survived. :doh: I would have to say the hand washing is ok. The sniffing dog and washing mouth is over the line. What next, fumigation before entry? If the girl is that allergic perhaps it is best to be home schooled.

I don't even know where one would get a peanut sniffing dog. Why would someone even train a peanut sniffing dog? I can't imagine there's a big demand for them.

[joegrundman]

it is do with the mainly, but not exclusively, american packaged food industry that uses nuts in small quantities as a flavor and texture 'enhancer'

these trace quantities introduced at an early age substantially increase the chance of acquiring severe allergy, and this is why dangerous nut allergies have become so much more common in recent decades, esp. in the US and other western countries.

[AVGWarhawk]

I don't even know where one would get a peanut sniffing dog. Why would someone even train a peanut sniffing dog? I can't imagine there's a big demand for them.


Dogs can be trained to sniff anything. Just positive reinforcement when the dog finds what you need him to sniff.

[sharkbit]

Dogs can be trained to sniff anything. Just positive reinforcement when the dog finds what you need him to sniff.

I've read an article about bedbug sniffing dogs.

Here is one of many from a quick search:
http://www.badbedbugs.com/bed-bug-sniffing-dog/

:)

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, I have seen the bedbug sniffing dog article. All in the training.

[Slyguy3129]

That's cool but wait happens if that peanut dog goes ape ballistic and attacks some kid, or better yet the kid was messing with the dog while no one was watching and the kid gets seriously injured, all because the parents of the girl don't want to home school her?

I've read and heard alot of things they are having to do just for this one child. Its insane.

[Weiss Pinguin]

What happens if the dog gets into some peanut butter? Boom, good luck trying to get him to focus long enough to save the girl :haha:

[gimpy117]

Normally I agree with you mookie, but I think this is pretty borderline. If her allergy is so severe she should also take steps to prevent it. Making everyone else pander her her needs is a a bit extreme. Theres a fine line you need to walk

[bookworm_020]

Dogs can be trained to sniff anything. Just positive reinforcement when the dog finds what you need him to sniff.

They miss trained a couple of dug sniffing dogs here in Australia awhile back. When they were taken for their final tests, none of the dogs found any of the drug samples hidden, instead they went afte a handbang of one of the handlers! The handbag was searched, but no drugs were found! Confused, they laid out all the items in the bag and had the dogs go over them. They all went nuts when they sniffed the talcum powder.
It turns out the training sample used to train the dogs was talc! Guess no mum crossing the border is safe now!:doh:

[Gargamel]

I bet that most of these kids died off in years past. Modern medicine basically works against Darwinism; ie, Weak die off, strong survive. In today's world, these kids get identified and treated much quicker.

[Slyguy3129]

OMG! Talcum powder! Ma'am I'm gonna have to ask you to step over here. Oh BTW your now on the no fly list.

[DarkFish]

Making kids to wash their hands more is unreasonable? I think it's great!and if I'm not mistaken that is exactly the reason why allergies are much more widespread than they used to. We aren't used to dirt anymore so our immune system doesn't learn to deal with it. I'd say don't overdo on hygiene as a kid, get a few sneezes, get a few diseases and build up a healthy and strong immune system. Instead of washing your hands at every opportunity and being stuck with it for the rest of your life.

[frau kaleun]

and if I'm not mistaken that is exactly the reason why allergies are much more widespread than they used to. We aren't used to dirt anymore so our immune system doesn't learn to deal with it. I'd say don't overdo on hygiene as a kid, get a few sneezes, get a few diseases and build up a healthy and strong immune system. Instead of washing your hands at every opportunity and being stuck with it for the rest of your life.

I think allergies are a different matter... with food allergies it may even be the exposure to something early on that triggers the problem later. An allergen and a virus/bacteria/microbe are two different things.

What I think you're talking about has more to do with developing a resistance to common 'germs' that one used to be exposed to more often back when everything under the sun wasn't antibacterial, antimicrobial, etc. I think what's happening in that respect is that 1) people's systems don't develop the resistance to common everyday stuff that they used to, and 1) the 'germs' (which, unlike most allergens, are living beings) eventually evolve into some form that can withstand whatever 'anti' ammo we throw at it.

This has been a known issue with antibiotic drugs for a while now, due to the over-prescribing of them in situations where the illness involved is either more of an inconvenience to the patient than a real health threat, and/or one that is not caused by the kind of organism that an antibiotic works against anyway. But in many cases it was easier (or considered less risky) to prescribe an antibiotic because it satisfied the patient and made them "feel better" if only through the placebo effect. Trust me, no patient who thinks they need an antibiotic wants to be told that what they have doesn't warrant the prescription for one.

[tater]

Washing out the mouth? Sorry, it's a little over the top. Also, forcing little kids to wash hands is a fine idea, til you try to get them to do it. KNowing how long it takes my 1st grader to do what she's told sometimes, they could end up wasting a lot of instructional time with 15 kids washing (in a public school probably more like 25 in a class).

Since the actual incidence is 0.4-0.6%, I think that some of it is nonsense or hysteria. We see many more allergies, even if not strictly peanuts at school, though than <1%. Some have tree nut allergies, for example, and there are loads of kids with gluten issues at school. The latter probably was simply not detected before since it just causes gas, and other problems that are not really a big deal.

I think in general, like most childhood medical issues "on the rise" it's simply increased detection, and lowered thresholds for what is considered pathological.

[joegrundman]

maybe in some cases, but nut allergies are not the sort of thing that used to be ignored. they are very dangerous.

Their rise has been charted everywhere. In asia for example nut allergies used to very rare, but more cases are now appearing because of the global processed food industry, which add trace amounts of peanuts to almost everything.

Exposure to trace amounts of peanuts in infancy substantially increases the chance of allergy.

[tater]

Yeah, but the death rate to such allergies has not increased, and is not much higher that lightning deaths.

Also, in countries where kids eat nuts earlier, they have fewer allergies. I think it has more to do with the parents than the kids, frankly. The CDC says ~4% of kids have some kind of food allergy. They also say that the cases have increased 18% over the last 10 years to reach the current ~4% figure. That said, they also suggest that the increase could entirely be better reporting.

My Daughter's 1st grade class has 15 kids. At least 3 have allergies (as reported to teacher by parents). There are similar numbers in the other 3 1st grade classes. 20%. That's 5X the actual value for the population at large that actually has food allergies. My son's preschool class has at least 2, possibly more food allergies in a class of 14, too. It's hysteria.

I wonder what the rate of such allergies is at schools (as reported to schools by parents) is vs the rate that epidemiologists come up with...

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Not being able consume peanuts and peanut products would really, really suck IMHO.

Of course, I can eat and enjoy same, so if I had never had any, I guess I wouldn't know what I was missing!!

[tater]

Ah ha... looks like the reporting is definitely a problem at some level. A common test to decide if a kid has an allergy tests for antibodies (IgE). Turns out that having antibodies is poorly related to actually having allergic reactions. A study in the UK took 79 kids with peanut allergies (as determined by antibody tests), and fed them peanuts in a challenge test (a controlled, medical setting so they would be instantly treated for any adverse reaction. 66 of the 79 had no reaction to eating peanuts (83.5%). Another test is a skin prick, but it's also not ideal since a wheal below a certain diameter, while indicative of a vastly lower chance of having an allergic reaction, is also sometimes wrong (<5mm is OK 80% of the time).

Another study of mixed food allergy types reported in the American Association of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology found that more than half given food challenges of the food their parents thought they were allergic to... showed no allergic reaction.

They said that what happens is a kid has some allergic reaction, then the peds doc has an antibody test drawn, and then they are given a laundry list of things the kid is allergic to. Of course most of the things they are "allergic" to they will never have a reaction if they eat.

[Platapus]

If a child can not attend regular classes, with reasonable precautions and accommodations, without risking their health (allergy), then they need to be moved to a non-regular class/school.

The school has the responsibility to provide reasonable precautions and accommodations.

Now I wonder what that word "reasonable" means. :hmmm:

[gimpy117]

well personally, if that child's allergy is so severe that simply breathing peanut on her (hence the washing of mouths) is a possibility for a reaction, her attending a normal school has to be questioned. I am under the opinion that when you, or your child has an illness like that, you first need to take precautions before making everyone else keep you safe. Do blind people make random people on the street lead them to their destination? No, they use a cane.I think in this situation its become an issue because everyone else has become expected to keep this kid healthy it seems.

[tater]

If a child can not attend regular classes, with reasonable precautions and accommodations, without risking their health (allergy), then they need to be moved to a non-regular class/school.

The school has the responsibility to provide reasonable precautions and accommodations.

Now I wonder what that word "reasonable" means. :hmmm:

"Special needs" kids use up decent chunks of edu budgets, actually. Hard to tell, but it looks like over 1/5th of spending is on special needs, and they are no where near 20% of the student population.

How is this extreme take on what other people have to do going to teach the kid to get along in the real world? The kids we know with food allergies (preschool and 1st grade) already know to ask a grown up about what to eat, and they know not to take food from a friend without checking.

This is actually pretty interesting. There was a Danish study that showed that 16% of adult volunteers reported having an allergy, but only 3% actually did. Part of it might also be that there is food intolerance as well as allergy, and the former is not at all the same. The kids with gluten intolerance can eat gluten, but depending on the quantity they might just feel under the weather, have gas, etc. It's not an allergic reaction, they won't keel over and die from eating a cupcake. Also, many kids that have real allergies as little guys grow out of it. Parents change their lifestyle to avoid, and then the kid never eats that food again so they have no idea they've grown out of it.

Looks like the only true test is a double-blind food challenge, any other claim of diagnosis is suspect.

[Gerald]

Parents who are aware of allergies, do not move their children for several reasons, there may be social, psychological, because there will be a situation, so that the child loses his self-esteem, which ultimately could lead to a worse upbringing

[CaptainHaplo]

Nothing wrong with helping a child with special needs.

However, when their "needs" begin to infringe on the rights of others, then it becomes an issue.

"Peanut free" schools for example. One child has the allergy - so now 250 or 500 other kids can't enjoy a PB&J sandwich at lunch? Rights end when they infringe on another person's rights. Its important to realize that in cases like this - either answer infringes on the rights of SOMEBODY - either the kid with the allergy or the kids without. Thus, you have to weigh the "greater good" - and I'd say that the one child having to adjust is less a burden than 500.....

[tater]

I have to say that I think that "self esteem" is so much nonsense. Every kid in school grows up thinking the sun shines out their bunghole. :)

This is interesting to me because we comment on this at b-day parties, etc all the time because there is always at least one kid, usually a few who have a parent bringing a treat for an allergy kid instead of whatever the cake is, etc. Every single party. Between my sister, wife, brother in law and I we didn't know one kid with a food allergy growing up. Not one. One kid I knew had asthma, and we all thought it was weird (he was my friend, but lots of other kids made fun of him for it).

I have to wonder how many have had challenge testing.

[Wolfehunter]

Also, is it just me or are food allergies more prevalent? I don't remember ever hearing about kids dying from peanut allergies when I was a kid - we had peanuts and peanut butter all the time at school and no one ever keeled over.I know how you feel. I grew up on the country.. We never herd of allergies.. Never existed. When I would visit family in the city and seeing there friends that's when I heard of these ailments. I found it strange.

My daughters school has a no peanut policy.. I also hate it. becuase we all eat varieties of nuts. There healthy, I don't understand why my daughter can't enjoy them? I can only have them at home for her. Washing hands should be implemented anyhow.

[Takeda Shingen]

"Special needs" kids use up decent chunks of edu budgets, actually. Hard to tell, but it looks like over 1/5th of spending is on special needs, and they are no where near 20% of the student population.

That is simply untrue. Every district that I have worked in has spent less than 3% of it's yearly budget on special ed earmarks.

Before you ask:

M. Ed awarded May 2001
Temple University
Philadelphia Pa

Diploma and Pa State Teaching Certification available via email on request.

[tater]

Yeesh, dude. You ever gonna let that drop, I apologized?

I simply googled and the federal funding seems higher (they said ~20%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_education_in_the_United_States
represents 21.4% of the $360.6 billion total spending

Course States pay the bulk of edu costs, so that likely explains the disparity. Looks like for most states fed spending is under 10% of total budget (with a few states in the high teens).

This link:
http://www.specialed.us/Parents/ASMT%20Advocacy/CSEF/BRIEF8.PDF
(seems to be over 10 years out of date, however)

seems to suggest that ~12.5% of kids are eligible for "special education," and nearly twice that for "compensatory education" (I'm completely unfamiliar with that term).

This link shows special ed and total school budgets (a column on left side),a and they all work out to high teens pushing 20% of total budget by school district.
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/01/07/special_education_costs_soaring_in_area_school_dis tricts/

California spends ~17% of total edu spending on special ed and has a low special ed enrollment %:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_SpecialEdJTF.pdf

Seems really hard to find a "average" number, or even a current study. The average special ed kid has a cost multiplier around 2 according to everything I see on the web (~1.9X, some show just over 2). Dunno how many have "real" special ed needs (downs, real autism (vs Asperger's or mild ASD), etc) vs kids that might be placed in special ed, but we might not consider truly disabled. I read one article just now that said that districts with a "bounty" system to identify special ed kids proactively had much higher growth rates of spending.

[Takeda Shingen]

The disparity you see is at the district level. The state allots certain funding with the expectation that it be used on special education, but it is largely up to the individual boards and administrators as to where that money actually goes. It isn't too far different than a guy from the state walking in the door and dropping a sack of money (with a dollar symbol on it, of course) in front of the school board, who then divide it up and spend it on what they really want.

I worked in two different districts, and I can tell you that this money goes to things that you can see in plain sight; mostly at Friday night home games. Artificial turf fields, state-of-the-art practice facilities, fancy team helmets and logos and large coaching staffs are now the norm in public ed. Meanwhile, the people who the money is meant for struggle with antiquated facilities, understaffed classrooms and a lack of truly qualified personnel. The last of those is a result of the first two; finding special ed teachers, specifically good ones, is a struggle because very few people want to work in the field. Frankly, the job sucks, and they know it.

When it comes down to it, school districts waste a lot of money. If the funding was actually spent on what it was intended for, you'd see improvement.

[tater]

More on-topic, a friend of my daughter has a tree nut allergy, apparently. I have no idea if it is "real" (meaning a challenge test, since I never asked). We were at a party last weekend, and her mom told the other mom about it, then since the girl knows me pretty well, she asked if I could be the grownup that Alexandra could ask if she had any questions. I said sure, then asked a few questions of mom so I'd know how to answer :)

Anyway, for this girl, peanuts are fine, just not tree nuts. As a result, her mom sorta pushes peanuts since it's a "nut" (not really) that her daughter CAN eat, whereas other allergy kids can't. So she revels in eating peanut stuff, and brings peanut treats to replace possible tree-nut treats. In this example (OP post), she'd be intentionally armed with a deadly weapon in school, lol. Course so would my daughter given her love of PBJ, or PB, banana, and honey sandwiches.

I know in my son's preschool class that we used to make an effort on snack day or party days to have something for allergy kids even when we know they keep special treats for them at school in case of parties, but the teachers ended up not using it because they could not be sure without the say-so of the right parents (and what if something was contaminated? Yikes!).

I think the responsibility should be 100% on the parents of the kid in question, plus the kid. Any additional effort on the part of the other kids is inappropriate, IMHO (and ultimately not something the kid with allergies should count on, anyway, it's a false sense of security).

[tater]

The disparity you see is at the district level. The state allots certain funding with the expectation that it be used on special education, but it is largely up to the individual boards and administrators as to where that money actually goes. It isn't too far different than a guy from the state walking in the door and dropping a sack of money (with a dollar symbol on it, of course) in front of the school board, who then divide it up and spend it on what they really want.

I worked in two different districts, and I can tell you that this money goes to things that you can see in plain sight; mostly at Friday night home games. Artificial turf fields, state-of-the-art practice facilities, fancy team helmets and logos and large coaching staffs are now the norm in public ed. Meanwhile, the people who the money is meant for struggle with antiquated facilities, understaffed classrooms and a lack of truly qualified personnel. The last of those is a result of the first two; finding special ed teachers, specifically good ones, is a struggle because very few people want to work in the field. Frankly, the job sucks, and they know it.

When it comes down to it, school districts waste a lot of money. If the funding was actually spent on what it was intended for, you'd see improvement.

So they (a district) make a claim to the State that they have XXXX students that qualify for SpecEd, then receive the money that might be 17% of their total budget...

then blow it on sports crap, and other non-special ed needs? (assuming I understand correctly)

Wow. That sucks.

[UnderseaLcpl]

It's too bad those kids don't get to enjoy peanuts and everyone has to bend over backwards for the sake of just one person.

If only there were some way to make schools more like stores and diners and things. Y'know, where there are just so many that there's something for everyone, everywhere, in every price range. A kind of market, you might say, butfor schools. One that would be free of the public sector.:hmmm:

Nah, that would never work. Better to let the state handle it by throwing resources and proper legislation for good educational standards at the problem while we sit around scratching our heads and wondering why it isn't working. They'll get it right some day, I'm sure.


Alright, I'm done being a sarcastic ass for the moment (nobody panic, I'm sure the mood will strike me again soon). Seriously though, this kind of issue where the schools are doing something that not everyone approves of comes up often enough that one would think people would just naturally be agitating for a broader range of choices in schools.

And it's not like anyone is happy with the current US school system, anyway. The unions are never happy, the kids are never happy, the parents are never happy, our educational standing on an international level certainly isn't happy. But instead of actually doing anything about it we spend all our time arguing over who should get to tell whose kids how to learn what or whatnot.

It never ends. Should there be prayer in schools? Should there be a dress code? Is it ok to teach this, is it not okay to teach that? Are the standardized tests biased? Are the teachers paid enough? Would more pay help? Can we afford that? Which schools are underfunded? Which ones are overfunded? Why? Are the intelligent-designers idiots? Are the secularists morally bankrupt? And yes, should kids wash their hands more often? Et cetera et cetera. Back and forth. Over and over.

So why? For the love of God, or for the lack of it if that's your choice, will someone please tell me why we insist on this mandated institutionalization of public education? Why do people look at me like I've just grown a third head when I suggest privatization, or partial privatization, or even a voucher plan?

I could go on, but I'm sure we'll all agree this post is long enough for now.

[tater]

The other oddball thing in the US is that people with kids pay lower taxes (since you get a deduction, and if poor enough a "credit" for paying taxes you never paid (ie: a handout).

Ditto state income taxes if the state has them.

What is the end purpose of public education?Personally, I think the entire goal should be a competent electorate. Past that, I don't see the compelling government interest. It's not like people graduating from public schools are considered capable of skilled jobs, they then need to seek real training (either on the job with a trade, or college).

Clearly overall it fails at this (the recent thread about the % that fail the citizenship test (when realistically there is no reason for anyone to leave HS without getting an "A" on that simple test).

Personally, I don't think those of us with kids should get a tax break at all (some of us already don't for federal). My state spends ~80% of the budget on edu, but that includes the U. Still, there is no reason I should get a break (except that I don't use public edu, since we send the kids to a good school, instead).

I'm against vouchers in general, because I see it as a handout. I'd be fine with a 100% deduction for tuition, though. To even be remotely fair, if a state did a voucher system, it should eliminate all standard deductions for kids. If you're gonna get a hand out for tuition, then you should at least pony up the same taxes as a guy who has no kids who is paying for you.

[Takeda Shingen]

It's too bad those kids don't get to enjoy peanuts and everyone has to bend over backwards for the sake of just one person.

If only there were some way to make schools more like stores and diners and things. Y'know, where there are just so many that there's something for everyone, everywhere, in every price range. A kind of market, you might say, butfor schools. One that would be free of the public sector.:hmmm:

Nah, that would never work. Better to let the state handle it by throwing resources and proper legislation for good educational standards at the problem while we sit around scratching our heads and wondering why it isn't working. They'll get it right some day, I'm sure.


Alright, I'm done being a sarcastic ass for the moment (nobody panic, I'm sure the mood will strike me again soon). Seriously though, this kind of issue where the schools are doing something that not everyone approves of comes up often enough that one would think people would just naturally be agitating for a broader range of choices in schools.

And it's not like anyone is happy with the current US school system, anyway. The unions are never happy, the kids are never happy, the parents are never happy, our educational standing on an international level certainly isn't happy. But instead of actually doing anything about it we spend all our time arguing over who should get to tell whose kids how to learn what or whatnot.

It never ends. Should there be prayer in schools? Should there be a dress code? Is it ok to teach this, is it not okay to teach that? Are the standardized tests biased? Are the teachers paid enough? Would more pay help? Can we afford that? Which schools are underfunded? Which ones are overfunded? Why? Are the intelligent-designers idiots? Are the secularists morally bankrupt? And yes, should kids wash their hands more often? Et cetera et cetera. Back and forth. Over and over.

So why? For the love of God, or for the lack of it if that's your choice, will someone please tell me why we insist on this mandated institutionalization of public education? Why do people look at me like I've just grown a third head when I suggest privatization, or partial privatization, or even a voucher plan?

I could go on, but I'm sure we'll all agree this post is long enough for now.

Why don't we just completely stop funding education? I don't just mean the vile public institutions, but even the noble and sacred private ones as well. This mean that now you are directly responsible for little Johnny's education; after all, he's your kid. For any institution to survive would probably mean a several hundred percent increase in tution, since private and charter schools also currently receive substantial government subsidies.

What that now means is that if little Johnny's dream is to become a lawyer, it is his parent's job to make sure he can pass the collegiate entrance exam. No, of course not everyone is comfortable teaching every subject, but the free market solves that problem too. With legions of now unemployed educators milling about, tutors in every concievable subject will be readily available for private work. Of course, the best and most experienced ones will likely be very, very expensive, as they will be setting their own prices, but that is the law of the jungle. For others, there will certainly be some correspondence school flunkie willing to work for a pittance.

The end result is a society where far, far fewer people go to college. The ones that do will naturally be of much higher quality than what we see now. As a college professor who home schools his children, this gives me the best of all worlds both at home and work. And so I welcome this brave new world where always the strongest thrive. After all, as a career educator now working at the collegiate level, I am both uniquely qualified and of sufficient financial means to ensure that my children will rise to the top. As to your [globally speaking] children, they are neither my problem, nor my concern.

[tater]

takeda, is most of the subsidy for religious schools? I seem to remember a situation where a parochial system got subsidy because if they shut down, the city would have to absorb all the kids, so XXX bucks a head subsidy was a savings. I also think that the majority of private schools are religious (virtually every church in town has a school, but there are only 3-4 secular schools. Of course every single religious school is subsidized by a tax break (I'd end all tax exempt status for churches, period).

I'd be curious what subsidy secular private schools get. I know our school has a speech therapist that comes like 1 day a week from the city, but past that there is nothing obvious. Our tuition is already nearly twice was APS spends per kid.

[Takeda Shingen]

takeda, is most of the subsidy for religious schools? I seem to remember a situation where a parochial system got subsidy because if they shut down, the city would have to absorb all the kids, so XXX bucks a head subsidy was a savings. I also think that the majority of private schools are religious (virtually every church in town has a school, but there are only 3-4 secular schools. Of course every single religious school is subsidized by a tax break (I'd end all tax exempt status for churches, period).

I'd be curious what subsidy secular private schools get. I know our school has a speech therapist that comes like 1 day a week from the city, but past that there is nothing obvious. Our tuition is already nearly twice was APS spends per kid.

I can't speak for every private or charter school, but all of the charters that I know of are actually grouped with the local school district. For example, all charters in Philadelphia are actually funded by the School District of Philadelphia.

My first year teaching was spent in a non-religious private school. Our textbooks, various teaching aids, some salary and equipment (smartboards, overheads, etc) were purchased through state subsidies. The rest was covered by tuition and fundraising. Again, I don't know about every single school out there, but I am under the impression that this is the norm.

You are right about religious school receiving substatial subsidies. Of course, that doesn't seem to be keeping them open in this part of the country, but the problems with priests and young boys seem to play a major part in that.

[mookiemookie]

What is the end purpose of public education?Personally, I think the entire goal should be a competent electorate. Past that, I don't see the compelling government interest. It's not like people graduating from public schools are considered capable of skilled jobs, they then need to seek real training (either on the job with a trade, or college).

Seriously? You don't see the value in state funding of education? By extension, an educated population? Your answer, in one graph:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/19/business/economy/glaeser-schooling.jpg

source. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/education-last-century-and-economic-growth-today/)

Go ahead and move to Haiti, the privately funded education utopian state. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Haiti.pdf) Let me know how that works out for you. ;)

[gimpy117]

I worked in two different districts, and I can tell you that this money goes to things that you can see in plain sight; mostly at Friday night home games. Artificial turf fields, state-of-the-art practice facilities, fancy team helmets and logos and large coaching staffs are now the norm in public ed. Meanwhile, the people who the money is meant for struggle with antiquated facilities, understaffed classrooms and a lack of truly qualified personnel. The last of those is a result of the first two; finding special ed teachers, specifically good ones, is a struggle because very few people want to work in the field. Frankly, the job sucks, and they know it.

Don't I wish. I wore the same Home jersey for 3 years and only got new pads my senior year. Luckily we had a lot of helmet decals (somebody bought a lot like 15 years ago). My team still plays On grass, and practices oh some old field out back. We also Just got new bleachers after 30 years because our old ones were unsafe. I dunno. maybe its because were a division 6 team in MI.

http://michigan-football.com/f/suttonby.htm

[tater]

Seriously? You don't see the value in an educated population? Your answer, in one graph:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/19/business/economy/glaeser-schooling.jpg

source. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/education-last-century-and-economic-growth-today/)

Go ahead and move to Haiti, the privately funded education utopian state. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Haiti.pdf) Let me know how that works out for you. ;)

Population demographics with a hatian-like demographic in the US likely lie with Haiti on that chart.

I was not arguing the benefit of education, I was arguing what was the compelling government interest.

[mookiemookie]

I was not arguing the benefit of education, I was arguing what was the compelling government interest.

Increasing GDP is not worth government investment?

[tater]

Our kids are not in a charter school, but a full-blown private school. I assume there is a difference there, but I'm unsure.

[Skybird]

Issues like this come down to a single question sooner or later: to what degree can the single one or the small minority expect the majority to design the majority's rules in favour of the minority or the single one? Where does natural, justified solidarity end and individual ego-centrism begin?

Must all public schools do lessons with a second teacher skilled in gesture for those few kids that are deaf-tumb, or is it more reasonmable to have all deaf-dumb children collected in a few exceptionnel school specialised on their needs?

Must all kids in a school change their own eating habits and behavior habits, that are quite natural for normal, healthy people, because of just one kid being allergic to certain agents in peanuts?

Years ago when i still worked in a store, one day there way a man in a wheel chair comi8ng to my cashdeks. He was in a bad mood and started to complain abaout us not being a faciulity totally derswiogfned to the needs of wheel chair drivers. He then complained that all the city and all the world is not designed to the needs of wheel chair drivers. I agreed that it isn't that way. He continued to reason that all world should be designed according to the needs of wheel chair drivers, and that the anti-discrimination laws of the EU demands it so. I said that this would mean that all the world would need turn according to the demand of a minority only, whereas I thinbk it would be more reaosnable if the small minority - the exceptions from the rules, if you want to put it that way - find themselves better places to live in according to their demands and needs, and that he maybe better finds one of those appartements designed for wheel-chair drivers, instead of all appartements now being changed no matter who live sinside of them. Which really blew him off. But he really pissed me, so I told him straight to the face that wheel chgair drivers are not the rule in our societies, but are the exception from the rule. And it is not as if they were not being taken care of at all. Their are taxis for their needs. Busses can lower to make it easier for them to enter. Appartements and houses are available where doors are wide and no stairs are being build in. After all, they are an exception from the rule,. not the rule of human design.

Shall all universe now start to revolve around the wheel-chaired sun?

If the kid at school is in danger to its life when visiting that school, then maybe it is a clever thing not to send it to that school. Like you also would not send a kid to school that is so vulnerable to germs and dust in the air that it must wear a breathing mask and on y rolling bed that is completely isolated from the environment.

One can understand parents of ill children that they want as much normality for their kids as possible. But fact is, kids with such diseases are noit that normal like the rest, the majority that defines the statistical norm of "normality".

But I think it is reaosmable to see that any attitude and attempt of the community around to meet these special demands and needs of the few, can only go so far, and not further.

And the many other childrens have rigfhts on their own, too. For example to eat peanut butter on their bread and maybe not cleanign their mouth every time they enter the classroom. It is quite normal for the overwhelming majority of children in our countries to do so. Must they all pass on this now - just because of the need of just one individual that by definition is ill?

I have a fruit allergy myself, harmless, but my nose goes watering like hell if I smell strawberries, and my mouth is terribly itching when eating certain fruits, amongst them apples and my second-favourite fruit of all - strawberries. :wah:

Shall I demand now that strawberries are banned from all public buffets, and no strawberry farms being run by farmers anymore, because their presence violates my right to walk along that one field without an itching nose, instead of just evading onto another path along another field...? And public markets! Ohg dear, I cannot walk a marketplace with all those vegetables and fruits without consuming two packs of cleenex per hour. Be social, guys, show your solidarity with me. Ban those damn markets!

I see the need for solidarity, absolkutely. I also knbow that biologists can show how apes act altruzistically and show soldierity, because in the end it not onyl serves the others, but themselves too. Crows and parrots and other birds also show this behaviour. But in our politically correct times, soldiartity has become a combat-term to battle through minority interests and to en force demanded ideolgic goals of said poltical correctness. Solidarity here, solidarity there.

Many people have missed the mark where solidarity was turned into harsh egoism and ideoplgoic warfare to kill opposing opinion by using rehtorical overkill - if you oppose this or that ideological drive, you now are "non-solidaric" - additional to being xyz-phobic, being intolerant, being right-winged, beign cold-hearted.

[tater]

Increasing GDP is not worth government investment?

The majority of educational spending is at the state and local level, not federal.

Many states are almost bankrupt at the moment. For most states, education is the supermajority of state spending. This is true of states that have the very highest tax rates, too (NY, NJ, CA, etc). Instead of the graph posted, it would be interesting to look at gross state product as a function of time with education spending superimposed on the same time scale.

You could also likely chart GDP vs calories eaten, too. Maybe even fat calories. It's not necessarily causal. Does spending on edu cause GDP growth, or do countries with large GDPs spend more just because?

[mookiemookie]

Instead of the graph posted, it would be interesting to look at gross state product as a function of time with education spending superimposed on the same time scale. Fair enough. It would be an interesting graph.

You could also likely chart GDP vs calories eaten, too. Maybe even fat calories. It's not necessarily causal. Does spending on edu cause GDP growth, or do countries with large GDPs spend more just because? Also a fair question.

But to change gears - take Takeda's scenario of what would happen in a purely libertarian educational environment with no government funding, which sounds very plausible. In such a system, only the rich could get a good education, thus ensuring little to no social mobility. You'd end up with a caste system - not to mention the crime and birthrate problems that are a result of lower educated populations. Sounds hellish.

[tater]

Well, there would be a market for school to be sure. 2 income families already pony up quite a bit for daycare, then many do preschool, plus "after school programs" that eat the day up until work is over.

Remember that local and state taxes would then have to virtually evaporate (80% of spending on edu, so everyone should get an 80% tax cut).

It's an interesting idea, dunno how it would work out. Personally, I'm fine with a system designed to create a decent electorate—which we do not have. Note that tuition currently selects not just for affluent parents, but involved parents. I think that under a voucher system, private schools would be just as crappy as public. It's about the kids/parents, not the quality of teachers, IMHO.

In terms of "compelling interest," if GDP were the goal of public education, then we'd have to abandon anything that didn't meet a cost-benefit analysis with increasing GDP as the goal. Some special ed is clearly not cost-effective. GDP only measures stuff that is created (put in terms of money). If kids with bad disabilities don't end up actually productive, then any expense on them is not valuable using that metric (and their families buying care for them in fact increases GDP). Not saying that is ideal, just saying that any metric like that might have unintended consequences.

My goal would be that any HS grad should be able to have an intelligent conversation about the basic history and mechanisms of US government.

[tater]

Actually, it strikes me that a pure libertarian system would have no FEDERAL involvement in education. What local areas decided among themselves would be fine.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why don't we just completely stop funding education? I don't just mean the vile public institutions, but even the noble and sacred private ones as well. This mean that now you are directly responsible for little Johnny's education; after all, he's your kid. For any institution to survive would probably mean a several hundred percent increase in tution, since private and charter schools also currently receive substantial government subsidies.

I didn't say we had to completely stop funding education. I mean, I'd love it if we did (I think), but I also suggested partial privatization and vouchers. I'm willing to compromise. My only concern is that some kind of competition be introduced to public rather than one massive politically-governed entity.

Nor do I think private institutions are noble or sacred. Or any business for that matter. I expect them to do exactly what business does: act in it's own best interests, but do so in a fashion that is conducive to other's best interests, or at least to the extent they attach their best interests to currency.

Finally, I have to ask why you would think that a move towards privatization would result in an increase in tuition. That doesn't even make any sense. Are you suggesting that the existence of more schools, which are competing, would somehow lead to an increase in tuition? How? That's not true anywhere else.


What that now means is that if little Johnny's dream is to become a lawyer, it is his parent's job to make sure he can pass the collegiate entrance exam. No, of course not everyone is comfortable teaching every subject, but the free market solves that problem too. With legions of now unemployed educators milling about, tutors in every concievable subject will be readily available for private work. Of course, the best and most experienced ones will likely be very, very expensive, as they will be setting their own prices, but that is the law of the jungle. For others, there will certainly be some correspondence school flunkie willing to work for a pittance.

And you think that the ignoble law of the jungle doesn't apply to the public system? Or that it applies less? Look around you, Tak. Look at our schools. Look at the state they are in. Do you really imagine that the law of the jungle is not at work? You're not fixing the law of the jungle by supporting the current system, you're just moving the jungle to a level where kids and parents can't reach.


The end result is a society where far, far fewer people go to college. The ones that do will naturally be of much higher quality than what we see now. As a college professor who home schools his children, this gives me the best of all worlds both at home and work.

I disagree. I think the end result will be a society where far, far, more people end up pursuing a specialized educational plan, and specialization is the heart of societal progress. Denmark uses a voucher system and it doesn't have a dearth of college students. Nor does any other nation with a voucher system I can think of. Find me one nation with a voucher system that compares poorly to the US in academic achievement and I'll cede the point.

We're agreed upoin the point that the quality of education would be higher, however.

And so I welcome this brave new world where always the strongest thrive. After all, as a career educator now working at the collegiate level, I am both uniquely qualified and of sufficient financial means to ensure that my children will rise to the top. As to your [globally speaking] children, they are neither my problem, nor my concern.

Glad you're so eager to embrace the brave new world, since you're already living in it. Don't believe me? Look at your US public education system. Look at what it has done with the highest spending per student in the world.

I am not trying to suggest a system where the best rise to the top. We already have that. I'm trying to suggest a system where everyone gets what they want. If that means the best rise to the top, so be it. They'll have to drag my specialized ass along with them. If that means some fall behind, so be it. They already do it anyway and charity is a wonderful by-product of the law of the jungle.