Jackson Free Press

JFP Staff

Myth 1: More than 60 percent of the state budget is spent on public education.
Reality: This argument relies on the assumption that the General Fund (about $4 billion) provides all available state revenue. The fact is, the General Fund makes up less than one-third of the state budget. Many states agencies are funded through diversions, revenue from state taxes and fees that never make it to the legislative appropriations process. Additionally, the 60 percent figure includes community college and IHL spending. The entire state budget totals $13.2 billion. Adequate funding of K-12 schools would require about $2.8 billion of that –21 percent.

Myth 2: Schools are hiding millions of dollars in reserve funds.
Reality: School districts are like any other business. They have to be fiscally responsible, which includes having money in reserve to prepare for large expenditures and unforeseen circumstances. When building, facilities or equipment have to be repaired or replaced schools must have the funds necessary. And just like with any other business or home, you don't always know when these repairs will be necessary. So you have to be prepared.

Myth 3: Most people prefer to send their children to private school.
Reality: The vast majority of Mississippi's school-age children, approximately 500,000 children, attend Mississippi's public schools, compared to 46,606 in private schools and 11,063 children who are home-schooled (2003-2004 data).

Myth 4: Our schools do not perform well.
Reality: Our schools perform extremely well; 76 percent of all schools in the state met adequate yearly progress requirements in all three areas in the 2003-2004 school year. Under No Child Left Behind, schools are required to meet adequate yearly progress requirements in reading/language arts, mathematics and other academic indicators for all demographic subsets of their students.

Myth 5: Schools spend too much money on facilities.
Reality: One of the most important tasks a school must perform is providing facilities that are safe and promote learning. Building and maintaining the physical plant can also be one of the most expensive parts of educating children. Numerous studies have reinforced that small class size has a direct impact on student achievement, so providing adequate classroom space is worth the cost spent on renovations, re-reroofing projects and new construction projects.

Myth 6: Schools spend too much money on administrative personnel, such as superintendents and principals, that could be used on teachers.
Reality: Mississippi's superintendents and principals make far below the Southeast average and the national average. In the 2003-04 school year, our superintendents' salaries averaged $88,164; the Southeast average was $123,440; the national average was $125,609. Our principals' salaries averaged $62,404; the Southeast average was $79,180; the national average was $86,160.

Myth 7: School districts are bloated bureaucracies that spend too much money on administrative costs.
Reality: A very small percentage of the average Mississippi school district's budget is spent on administrative costs. The vast majority of the budget is devoted to instructional costs, meaning teaching and learning at the classroom level.

Myth 8: Everything except teachers' salaries should be considered administrative costs.
Reality: Instructional costs cover a variety of programs, services and activities that affect the teaching and learning process, not just teachers' salaries. And schools don't arbitrarily decide how to categorize expenses; they must adhere to the Classification of Expenditures based on the Financial Accounting Manual for Mississippi Schools, issued by the State Auditor's Office of Mississippi. Board of Education, Superintendent's Office and Business Services are included in administration. As instructional leaders of the school, principals' salaries are included with instruction.

Myth 9: The Department of Education has requested an unreasonable increase in education funding due to growth in the MAEP formula that is out of control.
Reality: The growth in the Mississippi Adequate Education Program formula is not out of control. Subtracting the teacher pay raise and the increased insurance and retirement costs over the last five years yields a total five-year increase of only 5.3 percent. That is an increase of less than 1.5 percent per year.

Myth 10: We must stop throwing money at education.
Reality: Mississippi is 48th in the nation in per-pupil spending on public education. Virtually every other state spends more per student than does ours. Though money alone will not solve all the problems facing Mississippi schools, it certainly is necessary. School districts must use resources efficiently, but sufficient resources must be made available to them if they are to provide our children an adequate education. "Throwing money at education" is a strategy that has never been tried in Mississippi, as former Gov. William Winter points out.

Myth 11: Were schools to get full funding, they couldn't effectively spend it.
Reality: Schools have cut many programs and personnel over the last three years due to underfunding of the Mississippi Adequate Education Program. Were schools to be fully funded, they would likely, first and foremost, replace the programs and personnel they have lost. Additionally, superintendents say they would like to hire more teachers to reduce class size, a proven means of increasing student achievement.

Source: Parents' Campaign, Mississippi Department of Education, U.S. Census

Previous Comments

ID

80275

Comment

In 2003-2004, Mississippi spent $6,237 per pupil--ranking 46th in per-pupil spending. (I don't have access to more recent figures, but I'm sure the number has not gone up now that MAEP has been abandoned.) The national median is $7,574. No state that spends so little on education has the right to complain about a crime problem, a drug problem, or a teen pregnancy problem, because all of those are indirect symptoms of a poor educational experience. People say that you get what you pay for, but that isn't true. If we got what we paid for, between our underfunded educational program and our underfunded DHS, things would be much, much worse than they are. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-12T06:48:05-06:00

ID

80276

Comment

Odd, I thought crime was a character issue, not an educational issue. Are you arguing that we can teach people not to break the law?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-15T17:24:53-06:00

ID

80277

Comment

Are you arguing that we can't?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-15T18:17:03-06:00

ID

80278

Comment

Actually, mgeo. you instill character by "teaching" your children the values in life so they will know right from wrong, good and bad, and how to be courteous to fellow people.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-08-15T18:47:05-06:00

ID

80279

Comment

Ms. Ladd, I asked first. Knowing right and wrong is one thing. Choosing not to do wrong things is entirely another. Is it your opinion that most criminals act in ignorance? To rephrase my question: do you believe that most criminals don't realize they are breaking the law, or doing something wrong?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-17T00:21:19-06:00

ID

80280

Comment

mgeo, I don't ask yes-or-no questions in interviewing, because seldom do they lead to intelligent or honest answers. Your questions are designed to try to trap, and with due respect you're shooting blanks as they're written. What I will tell you is that facts show that criminals commit crimes for a variety of reasons. Other than that, it's rather common sense that neither you nor I can be inside each criminal's heads in order to determine what "most" know or do not know. However, what we do know is that education is a major way to reduce crime in a community. Anyone feel smarter now?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-17T10:53:35-06:00

ID

80281

Comment

A wonderful explanation, but unfortunately one that fails to acknowledge my question. Avoiding yes-or-no questions may be an excellent plan for interviews, but I am not interviewing you. I am defending a position; therefore I am well served to find out exactly what you do and don't believe, and this often requires asking you to affirm or deny a particular statement. You think I'm shooting blanks; with due respect, I think you dodged my shots. Simply stated, if you are arguing that spending more on education would reduce crime, then you are already making an assumption about the nature of the criminal's mind, since you apparently are confident that there is a causal relationship between the two, and not merely correspondance. I suppose I am rather jaded when considering the effects of spending more money on the public school system. Will an extra $1000 per student compensate for uninvolved parents, or make up for communities that don't value education? Are the potential gains worth the extra money? The rampant misuse of statistics doesn't help the discussion. Take, for example, the answer to Myth 10, which notes that Mississippi is 48th in the US in per-pupil spending. Sounds awful, right? But if you had to take a guess at where we rank in the gross product of state economies, or per-capita income, what would you think? I'm willing to bet that we are no more than 2 spots in either direction, somewhere between 50th and 46th. So, we aren't producing nearly as much as most other states, but we expect education funding on the same level? Who's paying the bill for that?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-17T18:39:23-06:00

ID

80282

Comment

I think the only assumption about the nature of a criminal's mind here is being made by you, mgeo. I'm not avoiding your question. You haven't asked a real one. Sorry if you don't see that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T10:11:55-06:00

ID

80283

Comment

It's your website. If you are stipulating the terms of discussion such that yes-or-no questions are not considered "real" (whatever you mean by that ambiguous descriptor), then I'm not sure what else I can say. I have made several points, none of which have been addressed. All you have done so far is return my first question unanswered, avoided my restatement of the question by denying the validity of yes-or-no questions, and then restated the argument of the article, without addressing any of my objections. Your last reply amounted to saying, "No I didn't," without even interacting with my argument that you, too, are making assumptions about the criminal mind. This is constructive dialogue? It takes two to dialogue. Let me know when you actually want to present a substantive argument, instead of simply dismissing me.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T12:13:17-06:00

ID

80284

Comment

mgeo, I haven't told you that you can't ask questions the way you are. I've said that they cannot be answered the way you're asking them; the problem is that you are setting up a false dilemma (is that the correct fallacy, Philip?). That is, you are asking people a yes or no question about whether or not they agree with a vast generalization -- that is, best I can tell, you're trying to challenge people to either agree or disagree with a generalization about all criminals. That doesn't lead to further discussion, and is why people are pretty much ignoring your posts. I'm just trying to explain to you why, so that maybe you can adjust your strategy and get a conversation going. So far, I only have one response to your question: No, I do not believe that all criminals are the same and have the same motivations. Therefore, it is impossible to answer your questions, as phrased, with a yes or no. That's why their construction isn't working.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T12:23:00-06:00

ID

80285

Comment

Your point would stand if you hadn't changed the construction of my question, as I intentionally specified "most" and not "all." If I am guilty of dealing in vast generalizations, then I forced to this question by virtue of the fact that Tom Head (to whom I was responding) does exactly the same thing: by supposing that crime can be appreciably reduced by increased funding for education. I am assuming that Tom does not think this will happen magically; that is, he must believe there is some mechanism by which spending more money on education will reduce people's attraction to crime. My problem with these arguments is that they assume a causal relationship between the two things (crime and eduction funding), when all we have (possibly) is correspondance. This is why I ask what I ask: I am trying to determine what exactly this causal relationship is. I am not willing to just assume that it exists. For example -- crime statistics show that predominantly black neighborhoods are far more dangerous than predominantly white neighborhoos. There are those who would use this correspondance to assume a causal relationship: being dark-skinned makes you more likely to commit a crime. This is obviously ridiculous. We would object strongly, and say that there are other factors that result in the discrepancy between the crime rates, and rightly so. This is exactly what I am trying to do here. I desire to challenge the assumed causal relationship between education funding and crime rates, and therefore the point of my questions is to encourage people to actually examine that assumed relationship, and if possible, explain and defend it.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T12:49:06-06:00

ID

80286

Comment

I sure wish I could edit my typos. Though, "neighborhoos" is rather funny to me now.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T12:50:14-06:00

ID

80287

Comment

I've answered your "most" question already, mgeo, even if it's not in the false-dilemma way you wanted. I have no way of knowing what "most" criminals think/are motivated by. That is still a question of generalization; arguing semantics doesn't change that. As for education, there is empirical evidence that, indeed, supports Tom's statement without dealing in generalizations. And it's not hard to reason out that funding helps more education happen. Does that mean that education reachs every would-be criminal? Of course not. Look at the dirty rotten scoundrels of Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers. Learnin' didn't help those thugs any. Otherwise, I'm all for blanketly blaming Tom Head for whatever goes wrong today -- that dirty, rotten scoundrel. (wink and a hug, Tom)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T12:59:01-06:00

ID

80288

Comment

This is exactly what I am trying to do here. I desire to challenge the assumed causal relationship between education funding and crime rates, So, do that. Your early questions weren't moving you that direction at all. They seemed very binary in nature, and most people just won't bother responding in that situation because it's generally a waste of time to argue with binary thinkers. I only responded because I'm the moderator, and I like to help people see why they're not helping create dialogue.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T13:01:36-06:00

ID

80289

Comment

Okay, I think we're getting a little closer. I am not denying that more funding (spent wisely) helps more education happen. I am questioning whether or not it will appreciably affect the crime rate. I imagine it was somewhat (or entirely) tongue-in-cheek, but you made my point for me: crime is tempting to the rich and well-educated, too. Actually, I read recently that the total amount stolen by the top 10% of Americans (income-wise) far exceeds the amount stolen by the bottom 10% of Americans. Of course, the rich are stealing much larger amounts at a time, but the point stands -- crime is tempting to ALL segments of society. My point about the source of this funding remains, as well. Should Mississippians be taxed out of proportion to fund education? I would bet money (tax-payers' money, of course) that there is a strong correlation between the gross state product and the total funds for education. If Mississippi produces much less than other states, why would we expect education funding on the same level?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T13:10:55-06:00

ID

80290

Comment

Did see your second post before I posted my last. I have to say I rather disagree. I have found that open-ended questions only go so far. At a certain point, the person will only repeat what they have already said. That is the usefulness of "binary" questions: they pinpoint a particular facet of the issue. If you feel that a false dilemma has been created, say so, and reconstruct a valid question.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T13:13:55-06:00

ID

80291

Comment

Garrrr. First sentence should read: "Did NOT see your second post..."

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T13:14:33-06:00

ID

80292

Comment

you made my point for me: crime is tempting to the rich and well-educated, too. Is that really a "point"? It's simply a common-sense statement. I mean, obviously. But this doesn't inform the rest of your argument, as far as I can see. Honestly, I can't quite tell what it is, as it's presented. Should Mississippians be taxed out of proportion to fund education? Our of propostion to what? If Mississippi produces much less than other states, why would we expect education funding on the same level? Uh, perhaps to help Mississippi "produce" more? You couldn't possiblty be arguing that education has little to do with economic development and the ability to build wealth, prosperity, etc., could you? I think I'm out on this one. Maybe someone else will step up to, uh, answer your questions and go a few rounds. The velcro isn't working for me. Later.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T13:26:47-06:00

ID

80293

Comment

Honestly, I can't quite tell what it is, as it's presented. I'm sorry, I thought that I had made that quite clear several times: the assumed causal relationship between education funding and crime rates can only be considered a correlative relationship, until someone is willing to demonstrate the mechanics of the assumed causal relationship. Our of propostion to what? With what we make. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Uh, perhaps to help Mississippi "produce" more? You couldn't possiblty be arguing that education has little to do with economic development and the ability to build wealth, prosperity, etc., could you? No, absolute not. Education has everything to do with economic development. I'm just questioning the idea of taxing Mississippians to pay for someone else's benefits. It's hard for me to swallow footing the bill for someone else's education. My family sacrificed many things to provide a good education for me. I worked hard to earn scholarships to college. What wasn't covered, I paid for. Why the quotation marks around "produce"? Isn't that a valid measure of an economy? I think I'm out on this one. Maybe someone else will step up to, uh, answer your questions and go a few rounds. The velcro isn't working for me. Later. Okay. Sorry to raise a voice of disagreement on your website.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T13:40:58-06:00

ID

80294

Comment

mgeo, it's not about disagreement; it's about making sense.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T13:47:43-06:00

ID

80295

Comment

Then I'm sorry you can't or won't understand my argument. It's fairly straightforward as I outlined in the last post.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T13:58:37-06:00

ID

80296

Comment

I'm sorry, I thought that I had made that quite clear several times: the assumed causal relationship between education funding and crime rates can only be considered a correlative relationship, until someone is willing to demonstrate the mechanics of the assumed causal relationship. Is there a causal relationship between education and productivity? Is there a causal relationship between productivity and general prosperity? Is there a causal relationship between general productivity and crime? And does it matter what any of us *believe* in this context? I think the problem with what you're trying to do, mgeoffriau, is you're trying to argue against the notion/belief/thought/meme that education can have a causal relationship on the crime rate -- in what seems to be an attempt to prop up your belief that criminality is largely a character flaw -- but you're doing it without any evidence one way *or* the other. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, nor am I particularly supporting the notion that education funding = less crime, if only because it's obvious that the equation is woefully simplistic. I heard Bill Clinton give a speech recently in which he said something very poignant -- he presented the notion that a lot of what passes for "conservative" thought today (meaning Bush Lite conservatism, not some honest intellectual stuff) is rooted almost completely in "ideology-based" arguments (taxes are bad), not "evidence-based" arguments (you might need to tax people to pay for extremely expensive wars and occupations). Arguing one ideologically based argument by presenting *another* is really not an honest attempt at dialog. When your "voice of disagreement" is simply a requirement that someone disprove your own ideologically-based statement (e.g. "crime results from weak characters, not external pressures and stimuli") then where, exactly, do you expect to get with that argument? Perhaps instead of simply looking to argue that there is/is not a "causal" relationship between rather oversimplified criteria, why not present an "empirical" reason that someone should support your point of view?

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2006-08-18T14:03:17-06:00

ID

80297

Comment

mgeo, in the beginning, you weren't making any arguments; just asking questions that required a yes-or-no generalization answer. I managed to draw out what your argument is, it seems, and that is that you do not want your tax dollars to pay to educate other people. I really don't see that you are creating any place for discussion. Which is fine. But I'm not going to get into a shouting match with you over why I think you're wrong. It is clear that it will go nowhere. Therefore, the velcro isn't going to work with me. Maybe with others. Good luck.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T14:03:17-06:00

ID

80298

Comment

Oh, I just saw what Todd posted. He's explaining the argumentation problem on this thread better than I did. Thanks, Toddy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T14:05:09-06:00

ID

80299

Comment

mgeo, you write: It's hard for me to swallow footing the bill for someone else's education. Do you really think that you do NOT benefit from living in a more educated state? Are you arguing that the gov't should not pay for any education, simply because you "worked hard"? Me, I'd rather be surrounded by an over-educated populice than an undereducated one.

Author

kate

Date

2006-08-18T14:18:10-06:00

ID

80300

Comment

Ladd -- it is unfortunate that you consider it a "shouting match". I would have guessed with your experience in journalism that vigorous debate over an issue would be appreciated. I do not appreciate the assumption that my argument rests on my unwillingness to pay for others' education. That is a secondary point; primarily, I am questioning whether that education (paid by whomever) would reduce crime appreciably. Todds -- thank you for the considered and well-reasoned argument. To your argument that I am not presenting evidence one way or the other: My series of posts have been in response to the original article, and to Tom Head's post. The original assertion lies there, and therefore the burden of proof lies there as well. If you want to get technical about it, I am presenting a pre-Marxian argument, that people are NOT economically determined. If you want a positive argument from me, I would say that crime may have a myriad of contributing factors, but the primary reason will always be a moral deficiency within the individual. No one is forced to steal because they are poor; they choose to steal Your point about reactionary ideological thinking on the political right certainly hits a nerve. Careful discernment is required in any issue; seldom is there a 100% right or wrong conclusion. I disagree however on your view of ideological arguments. What is supporting the liberty of the individual if not ideological? That does not mean that I don't support some taxes -- taxes used rightly are good, and taxes used wrongly are bad. Each case must be examined carefully. But the underlying ideology remains: the rights of the people are supreme over the power of the government, and therefore taxes (which reduce individual economic liberty) should be used as sparingly as possible, only for when the benefits really do outweight the loss of individual economic liberty. Of course, when you have that ideological basis, then you have a basis for discussing when the potential benefits do and don't outweight the loss. Much of the political left seems to lack this ideological basis, and therefore considers any benefits to be worth the loss of individual economic liberty, eg "If it saves just one life..." Well, I disagree. Outlawing cars would save millions of lives, but at what cost?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T14:25:30-06:00

ID

80301

Comment

Do you really think that you do NOT benefit from living in a more educated state? Are you arguing that the gov't should not pay for any education, simply because you "worked hard"? Me, I'd rather be surrounded by an over-educated populice than an undereducated one. I might, too. But if I am taxed, then I have no choice in the matter -- I have been coerced into paying for others' education. Why is it wrong for me to decide just how much I benefit from living in a more educated state, and support my local schools with an appropriate amount? Apparently the government knows how to spend my money better than I do.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T14:29:20-06:00

ID

80302

Comment

To perhaps move this chat in a less ideological direction, here's some interesting data that came from the Chicago Longitudinal Study about the effect of early childhood education on crime (this summary from a media report about the various societal benefits of early childhood education). Follow these links for more about the study itself. 7. Early care reduces crime. Long-term studies show that preschool programs significantly reduce the juvenile crime rate. The Chicago Longitudinal Study began in 1986 and has tracked 900 children from low-income families who participated in the Chicago School District's Child-Parent Center Program beginning at age three. The study also looked at 500 low-income children of the same age who attended other early-childhood intervention programs. The juvenile arrest rates for the young people in the study was 33 % lower than for children of comparable backgrounds. Violent arrests there was 41% lower. The rate of multiple violent arrests dropped by 38 percent. These results, published in an article of the Journal of the American Medical Association in May, 2001, confirm other studies, including the Perry Preschool Study in Ypsilanti, which found that the risk of arrest for teens and young adults can be cut in half by enrollment in quality early care.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T15:38:50-06:00

ID

80303

Comment

Congratulations and thanks Todd for spotting and setting forth clearly illogical and disguised trickery and crap. We don't have to worry about myeoffriau setting forth any empirical reasons to prove his point of view. But I'm in a learning mood and can't wait to be illuminated. I concede some people steal or commit other crimes for reasons outside of need, hunger or desperation, but I don't know that everyone commits crimes due to character flaws and totally disconnected to situations, circumstances, stimuli, and external pressures. I also believe we can teach some people not to break the law and how to act and live appropriately. My mother, grandmothers, father, grandfathers, and other relatives certainly taught me this. Additionally, I have learned that in order for some aspects of our system to work properly we have to live by certain rules that must be taught. We're not born already knowing them.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-08-18T15:44:09-06:00

ID

80304

Comment

Viva education! It certainly changed my life, and I thank all you taxpayers you helped this little girl along the way.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T15:47:18-06:00

ID

80305

Comment

That is a very interesting study -- it's usefulness is limited however. It suffers from the same basic problem, in that it confuses correlation with causation. Could it be that just being in early care will lessen the likelihood of a child developing criminal tendencies? Sure. But I am willing to bet that the typical family that utilizes early care facitilies are more interested in their childrens' well-being than those who leave their young children at home with older siblings, etc. Probably the strongest conclusion that could be drawn from the study is that the type of parents who utilize early care are less likely to raise children with criminal tendencies.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T15:50:50-06:00

ID

80306

Comment

I concede some people steal or commit other crimes for reasons outside of need, hunger or desperation, but I don't know that everyone commits crimes due to character flaws and totally disconnected to situations, circumstances, stimuli, and external pressures. Straw man. Crimes are obviously not disconnected from circumstances and external pressures. However, when you remove the individual's choice from the matter, you do a disservice to the poor man who does NOT steal, to the fatherless child who does NOT do drugs.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T15:56:14-06:00

ID

80307

Comment

mgeo, you've made your final premise very clear: you do not want to pay taxes to help other people's children's education. I doubt very seriously from what you've posted already that *any* data or research would veer you from your ideology. That is why this data is meant more for other people who aren't as apt to only argue to refute. And it's why your so-called arguments about your taxes are so incredibly uninteresting to me. I am willing to bet that the typical family that utilizes early care facitilies are more interested in their childrens' well-being than those who leave their young children at home with older siblings, etc. Just from this statement along, it is clear that you are not. paying. attention. to how this study was done. Of course, one would have to be a speed-reader to get through all 10,000 posts on it so quickly, eh? Or, should we assume that you are already intimately familiar with this study and its methodology? Giggle.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T15:58:14-06:00

ID

80308

Comment

It's not a straw man when it's in direct response to your logical fallacies, mgeo! You're the one who asked for generalizations, Einstein. Reaping what you sowed, eh?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T15:59:23-06:00

ID

80309

Comment

OK, here's a teachable moment, brought to you without benefit of mgeo's tax dollars. What's wrong with the following statement? Discuss. Crimes are obviously not disconnected from circumstances and external pressures. However, when you remove the individual's choice from the matter, you do a disservice to the poor man who does NOT steal, to the fatherless child who does NOT do drugs.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T16:01:53-06:00

ID

80310

Comment

I know but I'll pass. Good luck Mgeo. Some things are so easy.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-08-18T16:10:10-06:00

ID

80311

Comment

My last post on the topic. Bash away, folks. You'll get no more "trickery and crap" out of me, after these last few thoughts. Not sure who's read what, Ladd. I read this page: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu:8000/cls/eligibil.htm ...and assumed it was accurate, since it was on the website of the study. A screening interview and required participation by parents would seem to stack the deck. Sorry, Ladd, Todd is the only one who has posted any substantive reply to me. This has been an worthwhile discussion, however, as I now have a good guess from whom the JFP gets its smug attitude. Lastly: Creative. formatting is not a. subtitute. for a good argument.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T16:19:51-06:00

ID

80312

Comment

OK, here's a teachable moment, brought to you without benefit of mgeo's tax dollars. Actually, that's not true. Tax money financed the original development of the Internet, remember? *ducks and runs* ;-) But if I am taxed, then I have no choice in the matter -- I have been coerced into paying for others' education. Why is it wrong for me to decide just how much I benefit from living in a more educated state, and support my local schools with an appropriate amount? Apparently the government knows how to spend my money better than I do. mgeoffriau's real problem emerges. It's not education -- it's taxation in itself. Calgon, take me away. Best, Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2006-08-18T16:22:24-06:00

ID

80313

Comment

mgeo, we are not "bashing" you; we are discussing your posts, and your train of argument. Todd told you why your arguments are flawed due to their construction, which I was trying to do, but he did a better job, even though I suspect you're not completely hearing him. But, hey. I'm really not sure what you expect responses to be when your premise seems to be very simply that you do not want your tax dollars to pay for other people's education. These are your words: I'm just questioning the idea of taxing Mississippians to pay for someone else's benefits. It's hard for me to swallow footing the bill for someone else's education. My family sacrificed many things to provide a good education for me. I worked hard to earn scholarships to college. What wasn't covered, I paid for. And, as Todd said, thus far, you have not presented any kind of empirical evidence or anything substantive to back up a thing you've said. Nice work.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T16:28:00-06:00

ID

80314

Comment

Actually, that's not true. Tax money financed the original development of the Internet, remember? Good point, Tim. And I know, as Ray said, this one's a bit too easy. But it's Friday.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T16:28:50-06:00

ID

80315

Comment

Also, this is inevitably the moment when I think of the anti-tax nuts driving to meetings on public highways to complain about their taxes. Or, Terry Nichols and his farm subsidies. Way to show that dad-gum guv'mint.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T16:30:52-06:00

ID

80316

Comment

Oh, and there is more teachable moment potential in that statement — beyond the anti-taxation angle. Don't quit, yet.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T16:32:02-06:00

ID

80317

Comment

Breaking my word to answer that assertion. I've already stated that I am not anti-tax; I am pro-economic liberty. And I've also already stated that the taxation issue is secondary to me; I am more concerned that we will spend time and money (whomever's it may be) on a "solution" that won't really help the poor educational system in Mississippi. If I flat-out tell you one thing, and you decide I really mean something else, what else can I say?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T16:38:47-06:00

ID

80318

Comment

And again, as I forgot to say: I have enjoyed the discussion anyway; I wish it had been more productive, but there's not much I can do about that now.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T16:39:48-06:00

ID

80319

Comment

You've said a number of different things, mgeo, and they haven't all led to clarity on what you're trying to say. So we have to fend a bit for ourselves here. So, you're saying that you're anti-tax for education, but not for other things? That wouldn't be an unusual position, albeit a bizarre one, in my humble, er, smug opinion. One could argue that saying that you're "pro-economic liberty" isn't the most "flat-out" way to express anything. What if I told you I'm pro-economic liberty, too? Interesting statement, this: I am more concerned that we will spend time and money (whomever's it may be) on a "solution" that won't really help the poor educational system in Mississippi. If that's your concern, wouldn't it make more sense to talk about the ways to actually spend the education funding to ensure that help is ont he way for the "poor educational system in Mississippi." Cuz, following your logic as presented so far, we wouldn't have an educational system in Mississippi, poor or otherwise. The arguments are muddled again. Sorry.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T16:49:53-06:00

ID

80320

Comment

I'm sorry that you are unable to understand clear distinctions. So, you're saying that you're anti-tax for education, but not for other things? That wouldn't be an unusual position, albeit a bizarre one, in my humble, er, smug opinion. No, as I have stated more than once, I think taxation is good thing, when the benefits derived outweigh the loss of individual economic liberty. When the benefits do not outweigh that loss, it is a bad thing. If one could persuasively demonstrate that the benefits of further taxation for education funding outweighed the extra burden placed on Mississippi taxpayers, then I would be all for it. I have yet to see that persuasive demonstration. Was that so hard?

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T17:38:25-06:00

ID

80321

Comment

Cuz, following your logic as presented so far, we wouldn't have an educational system in Mississippi, poor or otherwise. Cuz private schools and home-schoolers don't count.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T17:46:48-06:00

ID

80322

Comment

mgeo, I'm beginning to think you're purposefully arguing in circles just to try to confuse the issue, you slippery snake, you. The problem NOW is you have not demonstrated, nor tried to demonstrate, that the benefits of education funding do not outweigh your "loss of individual economic liberty"—simply arguing against public education funding based on another argument that you have not supported that, supposedly, education does not have a "causal" connection to crime in anyway. You seem to be relying on simply an ideological belief that that education funding cannot help education, which cannot help crime, therefore funding is a violation of your "economic liberty" because education cannot do all those things that you believe it cannot do, and so on, and so on. Meantime, you haven't provided evidence for any of this, just a jumble of circular logic. I assume that if you could actually support any of your theories with data that you would have at least tried by now. Telling that you haven't. You have created quite the logical mess, I must say. But, it's useful to watch such anti-education arguments crumble under their own weight, so I agree that it's been useful.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T17:51:22-06:00

ID

80323

Comment

They don't count in a discussion of public education, no. Why would they? By the very definition of "private," we wouldn't have an educational "system" in Mississippi if we had no public education. Accountability and equity would be the first things to go.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T17:54:12-06:00

ID

80324

Comment

mgeoffrieu writes: Odd, I thought crime was a character issue, not an educational issue. Are you arguing that we can teach people not to break the law? Poverty is the main factor contributing to crime, and educated people are much less likely to live in poverty. These aren't opinions; these are provable facts. That being the case, one of the best ways to reduce crime is to keep kids in school. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-18T18:32:30-06:00

ID

80325

Comment

Well said, Tom. Per usual, you say it better and in fewer words. As if common sense shouldn't suffice here, the studies and empirical evidence are endless about these connections. Alas, so it is on global warming, and look at what ideology is dealing us on that one. Sigh.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T18:57:54-06:00

ID

80326

Comment

Avoiding yes-or-no questions may be an excellent plan for interviews, but I am not interviewing you. Philip: I’ll let Donna supply the criteria for an interview, though. She has not only earned a journalism degree, but actually taught a few classes. But I can tell you my own idea of what an interview is -- for what it’s worth. Interviewing is, by definition, asking people questions in order to investigate one’s opinions, values, and actions on substantive issues (and sometimes not so substantive). In that sense, your question does qualify as a interviewing. Probably not a formal interview, but it is a kind of interview nevertheless. I also agree with Donna’s assertion that yes-no questions rarely lead to honest assessments. 95% of the time, insisting on yes-no questions inevitably lead to oversimple understandings of how the world works. Besides, IMO, if understanding the world were really as easy as asking “just a few simple questions” and insisting the answers fit the binary yes-no format, 90% of all people in investigative occupations wouldn’t have jobs. (journalists, lawyers, detectives, judges, scientists, philosophers, historians, mechanics, equipment repairmen, and …well, no doubt you can think of other occupations). All too may times, reality is not as simple as yes-no. Sometimes answers are “more so” and “less so”, like “is it hot or cold?” instead of “yes-no”, like is a light bulb on or off. Donna: False Dilemma or not? Philip: I’d say that qualifies, but allow me to elaborate. In short, I’d say it more broadly qualifies as a false X-lemma, where X = number of ALL possible yes-no answers that all humans*, past, present, and future, can and will possibly conceive of when a yes-no answer is either (a) insufficiently proven, (b) insufficient accounts for all relevant issues, or (c) just plain erroneous.. So there can also be “false trilemmas”, “false quadrolemmas”, “false pentalemmas”, “false sexlemmas” (yeouch! Sounds like something Ali would write about :P), etc etc etc and on to infinity-lemma. The lesson to all: NEVER assume you have in your head ALL POSSIBLE answers. By doing so, you are effectively claiming to have the Knowledge of God in that matter. To me, such a mindset comes perilously close to breaking the First Commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” (take this figuratively if you don’t believe in God; otherwise, I mean it literally)

Author

Philip

Date

2006-08-18T18:59:57-06:00

ID

80327

Comment

Private schools don't constitute a "system"? The MPSA would disagree. As I have already stated, the burden of proof lies on the original assertion. I broke my word once. Most of my last few posts have been simply restating what I have already said. I'm done here. You are not interested in actually discussing the substance of the issue. You are either incapable or unwilling to follow an argument. You repeatedly speculate at my true intentions, ignoring my explicit statements to the contrary. You'd rather just repeat whatever ideas pass as "common sense" in the political left, results or individual liberty be damned.

Author

Mark Geoffriau

Date

2006-08-18T18:59:59-06:00

ID

80328

Comment

The MSPA would disagree on a lot of things, starting with integrated schools back when it was formed by former public-school parents who didn't want their kids in schools with black kids. That's when this whole anti-public school arc began if you recall. However, having an "association" of private entities has nothing to do with having an equitable and accountable educational system to benefit society and the people in it. I know, I k now, mgeo, I am a bitter failure when it comes to logic and moderating or participating in an argument. It's just my downfall as a human being. Take care, now. We'd trudge along here without your brilliant theses ... somehow.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T19:04:02-06:00

ID

80329

Comment

Oh, and thanks, Philip. I know I can always count on our resident logician to pop up when summonsed. ;-D Yes, one of the biggest problems in journalism today is due to yes-no questions. Why? Because it usually means, as Philip points out, that the asker already has the answer at hand, and is trying to play gotcha in one way or another. You can see what it managed to do with what could have been an interesting dialogue. But we never got there because of the way this started, in an apparent effort to show others the error of their ways. This question is simply absurd, and its intent, transparent, on its face: Are you arguing that we can teach people not to break the law? One way to recognize a loaded-for-bear yes-or-no question is to answer it with yes, and then no. If neither makes a sense, you got a problem with the question, Houston. I hear this done all the time by TV journalists. Watch out for "Don't you think that ..." as well. It's usually done in search of a sound bite, or in this case to try to set an illogical trap. That's why we journo folks teach our students not to do it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T19:10:25-06:00

ID

80330

Comment

As for the notion that “spending more money on education reduces crime”. Mego, it’s either (a) 0% true[i.e., 100% false, (b) 0%<100% true, or (c) 100% true [i.e. 0% false]. Of these three, upon which one would you be most willing to gamble your next ten paychecks? Having said that, I think more money for education does reduce crime up to a certain point. That point being where not one single extra penny will reduce the crime rate. But HAS Jackson reached that mark (or even the ‘middle 50%’ of Mississippi’s public school districts either, for that matter)? I haven’t really looked for answers to this question, but I think looking into crime rates for Iowa and West Virginia can be highly revealing. Both states are largely rural, both states have similar urban-rural distribution of their population, both states populations are overwhelmingly of one ethnicity (White-Anglo-Saxon). The only meaningful differences between IA and WV that jumps out at me are (a) education success and (b) income differences. However, since education and income are undeniably linked for a society as a whole, I think we can reasonably assume those two traits go together. If spending money on education reduces crime, then we can expect rural Iowa’s crime rate to be considerably less than rural West Virginia’s. Furthermore, we can expect Des Moines’ rate to be considerably lower than Charleston, WV’s. Understand that at this point, I’m just setting up how I would test the claim “education reduces crime”. I’ll be kind of busy these next few days, so I’ll leave it to you all to look it up on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (on the Web)

Author

Philip

Date

2006-08-18T19:27:12-06:00

ID

80331

Comment

Now that mgeo has stomped out, let's examine his/her attempts to close the public schools a bit closer. His/her initial question seems to assume, in the context of this topic, that the only reason for education would be to "teach people not to break the law." Ouch. Not, say, to help them raise themselves out of poverty, so that they're less likely to resort to crime in addition to contributing more to the society, the economy, quality of life for others, charity, etc. Or, to help them understand the law better so that they don't break it. Or to help give them the self-confidence, and varied interests and creative permission, not to do stupid things out of sheer boredom and lack of brain exercise, and being challenged to think. And, no, I am in no way assuming, somehow, that every person who lives in poverty will break the law -- just because I know that poverty contributes to crime. I'm not idiot enough to try to say that all criminals become criminals based on the same thing. The hard truth, though, is that the research (not to mention basic horse sense) backs up the notion that someone living in poverty is more likely to commit a crime and, especially, to live in crime-infested environments. What I find most interesting about the logic that mgeo was trying to employ was the part where all criminals clearly commit crimes for the same reasons, or due to the same moral jigsaw piece missing. This over-simplification of the morality of the "criminal mind" is breathtaking to me, and sure isn't going to help us lower crime—especially since it's hard to imagine deterrent punishment methods working on people who only commit crimes because they have a moral screw loose because their parents didn't tighten it enough. This idea of our education funding needing to be "proportionate" to our gross product is plain insulting to me as a native Mississippian. This tells me that, because I live in a state that is too under-educated to produce well, then I must always live in that place. That rather reeks of caste mentality to me, and it's not good enough for this native Mississippi woman. I believe Mississippians must educate our young people to compete with the best of the best, and that is the attitude I brought back home with me. I also believe in investment in our future, not being slave to our past. Saying that our education investment must be proportionate to what we have already managed to produce, with one of the worst education systems in the country, is some mighty stankin' thankin'. Thanks, but no thanks. The stuff about the Chicago parents really blew me away—the idea that the results of such a detailed study were skewed simply because parents gave permission for their families to participate. And, it's not as if all criminals had bad parenting, or morality training, so this argument tanks mightily from someone who seems to believe that you can generalize the primary reason for crime in such a simple way. How did the kids of your good parents slip through such a precise paradigm!?! Anyway, enough brain dump for now. Ciao.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T19:30:14-06:00

ID

80332

Comment

Oh, and as for that teachable moment I mentioned above—no one removed individual choice from the matter. That was simply another binary-flung hand grenade that missed its target.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T19:32:04-06:00

ID

80333

Comment

Donna writes: Otherwise, I'm all for blanketly blaming Tom Head for whatever goes wrong today -- that dirty, rotten scoundrel. Well, I did burn down the Reichstag... But it was an accident, I swear! ;o) You know, the funny thing is that I completely missed this part of the thread! I'd given up on most of it, because the conversation with mgeoffrieu read like one of those CNN interviews where they have lagged feeds: P1: "So, what did you have for breakfast this morning?" [LIVE in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...] P1: "Eric, what's the situation like in Fallujah?" P2: "Nothing but ham and eggs all around, Tom. I could sure use some Frosted Flakes about now. Maybe some Pop-Tarts. And the coffee is terrible. Tastes like two-day-old chickory." Thanks for the cover, BTW. You rock! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-18T19:37:37-06:00

ID

80334

Comment

You mean the cover of Lea? Life is sweet in Mississippi and Jacktown, eh? ;-D I know. This was one of those threads. But, sometimes, you just gotta do it, you know.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T19:39:30-06:00

ID

80335

Comment

... and this proud public-school product cannot ever walk past an assault on my favorite American institution. Lock and load.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T19:40:17-06:00

ID

80336

Comment

Donna writes: You mean the cover of Lea? Life is sweet in Mississippi and Jacktown, eh? ;-D Well, uh, I actually meant covering me in this thread. But that is a pretty spiffy cover. ;o) I know. This was one of those threads. But, sometimes, you just gotta do it, you know. I know indeed--and I do it way, way too much myself! I really need to put one of those electric collars on myself so that it shocks me every time I'm tempted to go mark a hydrant on the TrollBlog, because I'm still doing it. This is really ridiculous. ... and this proud public-school product cannot ever walk past an assault on my favorite American institution. I wonder if mgeoffrieu knows that I was homeschooled K-12? But you know, even I realize how important JPS is and why it needs our full support. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-08-18T20:42:23-06:00

ID

80337

Comment

Ah, I see. I was a little confused. ;-) I like the electric collar idea. I wonder if mgeoffrieu knows that I was homeschooled K-12? But you know, even I realize how important JPS is and why it needs our full support. I have a feeling that bit of information would rock his/her idea of Camelot. How in the world can someone homeschooled, or who sends their kids to private school, possibly support PUBLIC EDUCATION!?! My answer: How could they not? (If their education was as complete as yours apparently was.) The limited thinking on this issue reminds me of an e-mail I got recently that copied someone saying that how in the world could Frank Melton racially profile!?! He's black, after all!?! History, people. Study history. And not just the whitewashed stuff. Please. Frankly, it's the selective teaching of history that worries me the most about much (not all, thankfully) private-school curricula. Education is supposed to expand your mind and teach you to reason and think; not limit it to politically acceptable ideas that are spoonfed to you over and over again under the guise of a "good education" and to help justify why you're going to school with kids who all look like you and move in the same economic circles. Anyway. I'm about to go off again, so I'll stop. Public education now and always.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-08-18T20:53:28-06:00

ID

80338

Comment

No, as I have stated more than once, I think taxation is good thing, when the benefits derived outweigh the loss of individual economic liberty. When the benefits do not outweigh that loss, it is a bad thing. It is rarely possible to measure all of the benefits that flow from government activities, and it is never possible to measure levels of individual economic liberty. Consequently, this is a bogus argument that simply allows you to complain about taxation indefinitely. -- Tim

Author

Tim Kynerd

Date

2006-08-18T21:19:01-06:00