The Future of Cities

[Uncle Rico]

Why do people think there has been a dramatic drop in the number of students enrolling in teacher education programs?

https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/fewer-people-are-getting-teacher-degrees-prep-programs-sound-the-alarm/2022/03

Why do people think that public school districts that used to have their pick of job applicants, now will take pretty much anyone to fill a classroom DESPITE many of them decreasing in student population?

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/14/teacher-staffing-shortage-incentives-back-to-school

Why do you think teacher retirements have accelerated?  Pretty much every teacher I know who CAN retire has done so despite being nowhere near eligible to earn social security.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/01/1076943883/teachers-quitting-burnout

And the problem is going to get worse. Young teachers are quitting the profession early and finding other things to do. They are overworked, dealing with parents and lack mentors because they're either out the door or just too overworked.

To write off these trends as mere "job gripes" is insane.  There has been growing fundamental disrespect of the teaching profession going on for years. This isn't an "agenda." These are absolute facts.

Feelings don’t care about your facts.

People that don’t believe the teaching profession is in a perilous position right now are whistling in the dark

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Data from Sultan. Whooopeeee

Yep. Anyone can fake a webpage.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Oh good grief...

Dgies, if I'm understanding your thesis correctly, it sounds like you believe that more responsibility needs to be placed on the parents for the education of their children. I don't think anyone can argue with you. Engaged parents committed to their children's education are a if not the top predictor of student success. However, I think there's some factors you are overlooking.

First, it sounds like you were a 1%er in terms of quality of parent. You were blessed with phenomenal parents who raised you well. The challenge is, not everyone is blessed in the same way. Based on your description, most people have/had worse parents than you did and many have parents who are abusive or close to it. It also sounds like your parents were at least financially stable, if not a little more than that. That helps as well. You are not wrong to say that parents should do more and just be better parents, but the reality is, there is nothing we can do about that. People who are not good parents will continue to become parents, that can't be stopped unless you want the government policing who can and can't have children. Since this is true, we are always going to have children whose parents are not stepping up enough whether because they are unengaged or because they engaged but are overwhelmed due to a lack of resources. I don't think the proper response is to throw up our hands and say "your parent should be doing more". I think the right response is to say "your parents should be doing more", try to engage those parents, and provide the children with as quality of education options as possible so that those children can succeed in spite of who their parents are. I'll also add  that there's a cyclical effect here. Children often grow up to have a similar parenting style to their parents. You had wonderful parents and became a wonderful parent yourself. Most of that is on you but I'm sure you would agree that your parent's example showed you the way. I work in a field where I interact with people accused of all kinds of evil and abuse. In my work, I often get to meet the parents of these individuals. I'll just say that often you can tell where they learned their abusive behavior. This of course isn't a rule, good parents sometimes raise future bad parents and vice versa. Mrs. TAMU grew up in an abusive home and has become an amazing parent. She would tell you that education played a huge role in that.

Second, there's the reality that while parenting is important and may even be the most important factor, parents just don't spend that much time with their kids, especially in households where both parents work. Mrs. TAMU and I both work, we could not afford to live on just one of our salaries without significant downsizing. TAMU Jr. wakes up at 7am and we usually have her out the door to daycare by 7:30am. We pick her up from daycare at 5:30pm and she is usually in bed by 8:30pm. We spend 4 hours with her on weekdays and those four hours include us cooking, cleaning, driving her to and from daycare, giving her a bath, getting her ready for bed, swim lessons once a week (shout out to Muggsy), one other lesson once a week (currently it's gymnastics), as well as doing any other number of things that needs to be done where we might not be giving her our undivided attention. Daycare gets her for 9 hours on weekdays, more than double what we do. Now we try to make us much of our weekend as we can about focusing on TAMU Jr. but even with that it ends up being that daycare gets her about as much as we do. I think it will only get worse as she gets older and joins more clubs and sports or gets an afterschool job. We also have a second kid on the way so our attention is going to have to be split starting in a few months. I'd like to think that Mrs. TAMU and I are fantastic parents, and TAMU Jr is quite simply the best, but reality is that our parenting will only take her so far given time constraints. Quality education makes a huge difference.

[Hards Alumni]

Oh good grief.

About the only thing you didn't say was that I was a 1 percenter (I'm not), a Trumper (also, no) and a comic book (Richie Rich) was written about me. Again, no.

If having parents that cared about you, that wanted the best for you and sacrificed for you and your brothers and sisters is old fashioned or privileged, then I'm guilty and God Help Me, I hope I was as good to my children as my parents were to me. As to education, my parents gave up a lot to send us to Catholic schools in Nashville and Marquette. Maybe, if my Dad was less successful, we might have gone to the University of Tennessee or Middle Tennessee State due to financial pressures, but we would have gone to college. Period. Because that's how you create a foundation for your children. Period. And we would have made the most of it.

There's a few people in Scoop who knew my parents and I suspect they'd tell you the same think I am -- they were great people who cared deeply about the people and the communities they lived in. That's not old fashioned or privileged. That's called being Catholic and respecting the Great Commandment, "Love thy Neighbor as Thyself..."

As to me being old, give me a break. Caring is ageless and at the core of good parenting. You do things because you care, not because you have the resources to do so. Sometimes the fight is harder than it should be, but as a parent you can't quit and make an excuse that the time or resources aren't there. If you believe that, you should never have had children.

My children were orphans who lived in conditions few Americans have ever seen. Both had severe learning disabilities. They were adopted in the late 1990s. Which means they were out of high school less than 10 years ago. Yes, Vernon Hiils and Libertyville are good school districts. But when you have teachers who don't want to teach your children, you have a battle on your hands -- which we did! The Middle School wanted to social promote one of my children who at one point was struggling. They thought we would be pushovers until, during an IEP session, we called them out and demanded more. We scared the hell out of them because we knew what they were doing and it forced them to act. The teachers and administrators weren't used to college educated parents they couldn't buffalo in an IEP session. That child has a college degree from an accredited national university.

That's called parenting.

Another child was warehoused in a Belarusian orphanage for 2.5 years. She couldn't speak in Russian much less English when we completed the adoption. These are leaning disabilities far beyond anything anyone else I ever knew had to confront. But our calling -- our vocation if you will -- was to raise her -- and we did. When a high school teacher, in front of my child, told her we were expecting too much from her and that we had to expect low achievement from her, I blew! The result was my child looked at me coming out the door of the school and said, "thank you, Dad." That child too, has a college degree.

That's called parenting!

Neither my wife nor I were perfect parents. Far from it! But we were and still are committed to our children. There's a lot of people in this world who just get by who feel exactly the same way. They were given a responsibility and wrapped themselves in it. They accepted the fact that they have an obligation and they do the best they can every day. I'm not saying we don't need pre-school and we don't need to work with at-risk children. My late mother, who designed a kindergarten curriculum that formed one basis for what's still used in Tennessee, would come back and haunt me if I said otherwise. But the schools can't be parents either.

As parents, my wife and I had some tough days with our children. But the way we handled it was something that became the core of the eulogy at my Father's funeral and is the basis for good parenting:

Never Give Up!

I never called you those thing because I don't believe them to be true, and it's irrelevant.  What I called you was old and from another time, and the rest of your response only affirmed my beliefs.  I don't believe you to be a bad person or a bad parent.  Quite the opposite.  You've had every opportunity to raise great kids, and be able to advocate for them, and provide for them.  Great job.  I mean that.  What I'm saying is that not everyone has the privilege of being able to do that.  Which was my point.  The "Work harder" mindset sounds great on paper, but isn't a a possibility for a lot of parents.  Some parents can 'parent harder' but have no success.

[Hards Alumni]

Praise Jesus.

Kind of cruel, considering.  Remember to ask for forgiveness for this one on Sunday.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Data from Sultan. Whooopeeee

Sultan works for edweek, NPR, and axios?

It doesn't matter what Scooper found the data. Just what the data says and whether it is legitimate. Sultan providing the data doesn't make it illegitimate.

[Hards Alumni]

Hope you didn’t hurt yourself with all that “heavy lifting”.

Articles with stats vs anecdotes the rest of us have provided.

[rocket surgeon]

brother dogie, fantastic story and huge kudos at ya for the ferocity with which you stood guard for your children...and it never ends.  it's not supposed to. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

Data from Sultan. Whooopeeee

Lame.

[MuggsyB]

Again, I think the initial focus needs to be reading and pre-K.  The fact that kids generally don't learn how to read until they are 6-7 is an absolute joke.  Now obviously parents or families that read to young kids make an enormous difference in their development.  But the goal of every pre-K early childhood teacher should be to getting children to read. 

I've read certain things over the years that this goal is too lofty and puts too much pressure on our young citizens.  Really?  This is fking nonsense.  Children learn way faster than adults, especially ages 1-5.  If you put an average kid in a household with 20 people and 10 different languages spoken, he/she would know all 10 languages fluently with zero problem.  An adult does not have that capacity.

You want to find some correlation between how much money we spend on education and results?  Spend it on a Pre-K reading initiative.  Pay people good money to get these youngsters the most important tool to succeed in their future.  And once they learn how to read they can attack the world with confidence and passion. 

[jesmu84]

Again, I think the initial focus needs to be reading and pre-K.  The fact that kids generally don't learn how to read until they are 6-7 is an absolute joke.  Now obviously parents or families that read to young kids make an enormous difference in their development.  But the goal of every pre-K early childhood teacher should be to getting children to read. 

I've read certain things over the years that this goal is too lofty and puts too much pressure on our young citizens.  Really?  This is fking nonsense.  Children learn way faster than adults, especially ages 1-5.  If you put an average kid in a household with 20 people and 10 different languages spoken, he/she would know all 10 languages fluently with zero problem.  An adult does not have that capacity.

You want to find some correlation between how much money we spend on education and results?  Spend it on a Pre-K reading initiative.  Pay people good money to get these youngsters the most important tool to succeed in their future.  And once they learn how to read they can attack the world with confidence and passion.

Agreed muggs! We need universal pre-K and universal childcare

[Hards Alumni]

Again, I think the initial focus needs to be reading and pre-K.  The fact that kids generally don't learn how to read until they are 6-7 is an absolute joke.  Now obviously parents or families that read to young kids make an enormous difference in their development.  But the goal of every pre-K early childhood teacher should be to getting children to read. 

I've read certain things over the years that this goal is too lofty and puts too much pressure on our young citizens.  Really?  This is fking nonsense.  Children learn way faster than adults, especially ages 1-5.  If you put an average kid in a household with 20 people and 10 different languages spoken, he/she would know all 10 languages fluently with zero problem.  An adult does not have that capacity.

You want to find some correlation between how much money we spend on education and results?  Spend it on a Pre-K reading initiative.  Pay people good money to get these youngsters the most important tool to succeed in their future.  And once they learn how to read they can attack the world with confidence and passion.

Yep.  There is a large correlation between reading and success in school.

[Pakuni]

Yep.  There is a large correlation between reading and success in school.

Yep.
Also a large correlation between early childhood education and not just success in school, but success in life (less likely to become a criminal, less likely to abuse alcohol/drugs, etc.).

[Not A Serious Person]

Yep.
Also a large correlation between early childhood education and not just success in school, but success in life (less likely to become a criminal, less likely to abuse alcohol/drugs, etc.).

Everyone knows this. So, to give one example, why isn't it fixed in Chicago? 

https://www.wbez.org/stories/why-has-the-cps-budget-increased-while-enrollment-has-shrunk/a114360a-447d-4a49-9e64-c2b6de124c4d
A decade ago, in 2013, the school district’s total budget, at a time of cuts, was $5.3 billion, or about $13,200 for each of the 403,000 students. The 2023 budget is $9.4 billion, or about $29,400 each for 322,000 students. Meanwhile, over the past decade, enrollment is down by about 81,000 students.

So, are Chicago's schools 250% better than the average school in the country?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-08-26/which-states-invest-the-most-in-their-students#:~:text=Data%20shows%20which%20states%20spend,at%20the%20school%20level%20lie.&text=%7C-,Aug.,2022%2C%20at%202%3A07%20p.m.&text=To%20educate%20students%2C%20the%20U.S.,both%20across%20and%20within%20states.
To educate students, the U.S. on average spent just under $12,000 per pupil in fiscal year 2019, though totals varied broadly both across and within states.

Pre-k, universal, early childhood ... blah blah blah ...what you are saying is we don't spend enough per student.  Chicago sh!ts money per student like few other school districts.  So, why isn't it the model school district?


 From WBEZ again ...

business, personnel costs make up the bulk of CPS’ expenses (65%), and its 43,000 employees get raises every year.

Whose fault is this and is the answer even more money when Chicago spends $29,000 per student when the rest of the country spends less than $12,000 per student?

[MU82]

Cities reviving downtowns by converting offices to housing

https://apnews.com/article/cities-downtowns-vacant-offices-affordable-housing-pandemic-cc2cd895fd0f186229f69b74a133eddb?user_email=6647dfa7189f748384d7389910f7b584c6fcfc35ae990102964c7e826d4175c7&utm_medium=Morning_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_campaign=MorningWire_April24_2023&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers

NEW YORK (AP) — On the 31st floor of what was once a towering office building in downtown Manhattan, construction workers lay down steel bracing for what will soon anchor a host of residential amenities: a catering station, lounge, fire pit and gas grills.

The building, empty since 2021, is being converted to 588 market-rate rental apartments that will house about 1,000 people. “We’re taking a vacant building and pouring life not only into this building, but this entire neighborhood,” said Joey Chilelli, managing director of real estate firm Vanbarton Group, which is doing the conversion.

Across the country, office-to-housing conversions are being pursued as a potential lifeline for struggling downtown business districts that emptied out during the coronavirus pandemic and may never fully recover. The conversion push is marked by an emphasis on affordability. Multiple cities are offering serious tax breaks for developers to incentivize office-to-housing conversions — provided that a certain percentage of apartments are offered at affordable below-market prices.

[dgies9156]

All:

First off, Brother TAMU, thanks for the kind words. Sadly, you may be right about my parents in the sense they were in the 1 percent. If they were, there's something incredibly wrong in this country. What they did was put their family first and put the needs of the flock of children they had (five in five years and a sixth 10 years later) ahead of their own desires and, in some cases, needs.

For what it's worth, so did my wife's parents. Like my parents, both her parents worked all day. But they found a way, as TAMU and Ms. TAMU are for TAMU Junior and as we did for our two children.

On a broad basis, yes, I am pointedly arguing for stronger and more effective parental involvement in their children's education. My wife and I used to discuss what we called the "three-legged stool" on which quality education is based. The three legs are parent, teacher and child. If all three legs are firm and well placed, you have an opportunity for a great school where the students do well. If one of the legs is broken or not properly rooted, the stool might work but it's far less effective. When two of the legs are broken or do not work, it's highly unlikely that the stool will work.

In our case, the Middle School teachers our children had should have been charged with educational malpractice. We scared them because we demanded results and we well versed in both state and federal law. They were failing our children and we demanded better. The teachers didn't have the upper hand because they knew we were right. Don't get me wrong: when our children screwed up (as they did many times), we were vocal with our children too. 

Which brings me back to the topic at hand, the future of cities. Nobody is going to make a major capital investment in poor urban neighborhoods until the human capital problems are solved. The workforce is generally not equipped to do anything other than the simplest tasks. That's a function of the three legged stool with no legs working.

Schools have to exist for the students, not for the teachers, and parents have to be involved. I can't speak to every urban situation but in my long-time home of Chicago, I am confident that everything the schools is do for the teachers and not for the students. And, it's not translating to a better quality, better performing workforce. In the private sector, we'd respond by more R&D, capital expenditures and a major change-out in the staffing. Particularly with Chicago's new Mayor, that's not going to happen in the Schools.

Early childhood will help, I agree, but reform is the only answer!

[MU82]

I can't speak to every urban situation but in my long-time home of Chicago, I am confident that everything the schools is do for the teachers and not for the students.

Sorry, dg, but you also can't speak for Chicago. My wife and I know at least a dozen Chicago teachers, including two of our best friends, and they work their asses off to make life and learning better for the kids. My daughter's best friend from high school is a Chicago public school teacher; she works incredibly hard, too. You might think their pay is "high" because it's more than teachers make in smaller towns and/or southern states, but Chicago is a very high cost-of-living area, and all of the teachers we know work WAY more than 40 hours a week.

And speaking of the south ...

Here in Charlotte, another major metro area, hundreds upon hundreds of teacher openings went unfilled this school year. As a result, class sizes had to be made larger, electives had to be abandoned, extracurricular activities were reduced, etc. Kids with special needs have been affected the most, as those jobs have been the most difficult to fill. NC has gutted teacher unions, millions of taxpayer dollars get funneled to religious schools and wealthy private schools, and teacher pay has lagged behind other states (though they've been frantically trying to play catch-up the last couple of years under public pressure). Teachers here are overworked and underappreciated, too.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Cities reviving downtowns by converting offices to housing

https://apnews.com/article/cities-downtowns-vacant-offices-affordable-housing-pandemic-cc2cd895fd0f186229f69b74a133eddb?user_email=6647dfa7189f748384d7389910f7b584c6fcfc35ae990102964c7e826d4175c7&utm_medium=Morning_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_campaign=MorningWire_April24_2023&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers

NEW YORK (AP) — On the 31st floor of what was once a towering office building in downtown Manhattan, construction workers lay down steel bracing for what will soon anchor a host of residential amenities: a catering station, lounge, fire pit and gas grills.

The building, empty since 2021, is being converted to 588 market-rate rental apartments that will house about 1,000 people. “We’re taking a vacant building and pouring life not only into this building, but this entire neighborhood,” said Joey Chilelli, managing director of real estate firm Vanbarton Group, which is doing the conversion.

Across the country, office-to-housing conversions are being pursued as a potential lifeline for struggling downtown business districts that emptied out during the coronavirus pandemic and may never fully recover. The conversion push is marked by an emphasis on affordability. Multiple cities are offering serious tax breaks for developers to incentivize office-to-housing conversions — provided that a certain percentage of apartments are offered at affordable below-market prices.

I was thinking about this story when this thread started.  I saw a similar article a month ago and found it interesting that cities see it as a one-time-opportunity to convert unused office space to apartments (that are in demand).  Kills a few birds with one stone.

[Not A Serious Person]

Cities reviving downtowns by converting offices to housing

https://apnews.com/article/cities-downtowns-vacant-offices-affordable-housing-pandemic-cc2cd895fd0f186229f69b74a133eddb?user_email=6647dfa7189f748384d7389910f7b584c6fcfc35ae990102964c7e826d4175c7&utm_medium=Morning_Wire&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_campaign=MorningWire_April24_2023&utm_term=Morning%20Wire%20Subscribers

NEW YORK (AP) — On the 31st floor of what was once a towering office building in downtown Manhattan, construction workers lay down steel bracing for what will soon anchor a host of residential amenities: a catering station, lounge, fire pit and gas grills.

The building, empty since 2021, is being converted to 588 market-rate rental apartments that will house about 1,000 people. “We’re taking a vacant building and pouring life not only into this building, but this entire neighborhood,” said Joey Chilelli, managing director of real estate firm Vanbarton Group, which is doing the conversion.

Across the country, office-to-housing conversions are being pursued as a potential lifeline for struggling downtown business districts that emptied out during the coronavirus pandemic and may never fully recover. The conversion push is marked by an emphasis on affordability. Multiple cities are offering serious tax breaks for developers to incentivize office-to-housing conversions — provided that a certain percentage of apartments are offered at affordable below-market prices.

This is what FiDi (the Financial District) did after 9/11. It remade itself into a residential neighborhood.

They even have a Montessori school across the street from the New York Stock Exchange.

---

So, yes, it can work, but it is horribly expensive, highly disruptive, and takes 10 to 20 years.

And if FiDi, Fulton Market in Chicago, and the Third Ward in Milwaukee are examples, downtowns remade into residential areas are for rich, well-educated white people to live. It is not a place of affordability housing. So, it widens the inequality in major cities, a source of big problems now.

But based on the comments here, which reflect comments away from this board (so I'm not bashing anyone here, just saying they reflect a wider the comments about cities), there is nothing wrong with the cities. They are returning to normal. Remote work is ending. So, there is no need to spend trillions in remaking the downtown areas in residential neighborhoods as it is "all going back to 2019."

But, if the pandemic has changed the nature of work, and the need to have major downtown areas of major citites, then yes, we need to spend trillions redoing all the offices in residential and rethink why we have large urban areas and happens in them (live in downtown or work there).

But for what? Rich white people to live a more cosmopolitan lifestyle?  What about the wasteland on the Northside of Milwaukee, the south and west sides of Chicago, and Harlem and the Bronx in NYC?  This does nothing for them.

----

How Wall Street Became a Fancy Residential Neighborhood
The effort to repopulate downtown Manhattan has been a big success, but not for everyone.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-29/how-wall-street-became-a-fancy-residential-neighborhood

The rise of remote work during the pandemic has cut demand for office space and left some American downtowns feeling like ghost towns. As a result, there’s been much talk of converting downtown offices into apartments. This could not only bail out owners of suddenly less-valuable commercial real estate, advocates say, but bring life to emptied-out neighborhoods, passengers to underused transit systems and affordable housing to cities that desperately need it.

Could it work? Well, one iconic American downtown — New York’s Financial District, also known as Wall Street — embarked on just such a transformation several decades ago and has certainly succeeded in attracting residents. In 1970, the Manhattan census tracts south of Chambers Street on the west and the Brooklyn Bridge on the east had 833 inhabitants. As of the 2020 Census, there were 60,806.

[Pakuni]

Pre-k, universal, early childhood ... blah blah blah ...what you are saying is we don't spend enough per student.  Chicago sh!ts money per student like few other school districts.  So, why isn't it the model school district?

Literally nobody here said this. You remain the king of knocking over straw men.

From WBEZ again ...

business, personnel costs make up the bulk of CPS’ expenses (65%), and its 43,000 employees get raises every year.

Personnel costs make up the bulk of every nearly organization's spending. Duh. In fact, 65% is arguably on the low end.
Raises? No, no that!

Whose fault is this and is the answer even more money when Chicago spends $29,000 per student when the rest of the country spends less than $12,000 per student?

First, can you show where you're getting this $12,000 figure? According to the next link, the national average was $13,494 in FY2020. Are you really suggesting the national average has dipped about $1,500 per student over the last three years?

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/per-pupil-spending.html

Second, according to the next link, per pupil spending in CPS was $17,800 in 2020, not that far off the national average which we've already established. Now, can you imagine any reason why per-student spending has risen so dramatically in the three years since? Or where CPS got all this money? Or what worldwide event might have led to a sudden increase in spending? Might it be the result of a torrent of COVID relief money - more than $2.8 billion, to be exact - CPS has received since then? Or is it your argument that CPS has risen property taxes 63% since 2020 to cover those added costs?

https://chalkboardreview.com/report-as-schools-approach-30000-per-student-in-spending-performance-plunges/

Third, it's quite ridiculous to compare per-pupil spending in a massive, urban school district with the "national average." As you know, everything costs more - from personnel  to transportation to supplies to building maintenance - in places like Chicago, New York and San Francisco, than in Newton, Kansas, Butte Montana, and Evansville, Indiana. Any accurate comparison would have to be among peer districts.

None of this isn't to suggest CPS doesn't have big problems or isn't in need of significant improvement. It does and it does. But your suggestion that its per pupil spending ought to be compared with the national average is pretty silly.

[Not A Serious Person]

Literally nobody here said this. You remain the king of knocking over straw men.

Personnel costs make up the bulk of every nearly organization's spending. Duh. In fact, 65% is arguably on the low end.
Raises? No, no that!


First, can you show where you're getting this $12,000 figure? According to the next link, the national average was $13,494 in FY2020. Are you really suggesting the national average has dipped about $1,500 per student over the last three years?

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/per-pupil-spending.html

Second, according to the next link, per pupil spending in CPS was $17,800 in 2020, not that far off the national average which we've already established. Now, can you imagine any reason why per-student spending has risen so dramatically in the three years since? Or where CPS got all this money? Or what worldwide event might have led to a sudden increase in spending? Might it be the result of a torrent of COVID relief money - more than $2.8 billion, to be exact - CPS has received since then? Or is it your argument that CPS has risen property taxes 63% since 2020 to cover those added costs?

https://chalkboardreview.com/report-as-schools-approach-30000-per-student-in-spending-performance-plunges/

Third, it's quite ridiculous to compare per-pupil spending in a massive, urban school district with the "national average." As you know, everything costs more - from personnel  to transportation to supplies to building maintenance - in places like Chicago, New York and San Francisco, than in Newton, Kansas, Butte Montana, and Evansville, Indiana. Any accurate comparison would have to be among peer districts.

None of this isn't to suggest CPS doesn't have big problems or isn't in need of significant improvement. It does and it does. But your suggestion that its per pupil spending ought to be compared with the national average is pretty silly.

I'll boil it down for you ... about 100% of the population agrees on the need for pre-k, universal, and early childhood education.  There is no need to make a case for it. It has long ago been made.

So if we all agree on it, what's the problem?  Money! Who is going to pay for it? So, this is a veiled argument for an increase in per-pupil spending.

Are we not paying enough already?

And to your post ... just say it ... the problem with Chicago is $30k per pupil is not enough. The city needs to raise taxes and spend even more on education.

[Jay Bee]

Personnel costs make up the bulk of every nearly organization's spending. Duh. In fact, 65% is arguably on the low end.
Raises? No, no that!

#FakeNews #Lies

“Every nearly”? Lol. Not nearly every either.

[Pakuni]

I'll boil it down for you ... about 100% of the population agrees on the need for pre-k, universal, and early childhood education.  There is no need to make a case for it. It has long ago been made.

So if we all agree on it, what's the problem?  Money! Who is going to pay for it? So, this is a veiled argument for an increase in per-pupil spending.

Are we not paying enough already?

And to your post ... just say it ... the problem with Chicago is $30k per pupil is not enough. The city needs to raise taxes and spend even more on education.

So, if I understand your argument here, it's that you and everyone else accepts that early childhood education has wide-ranging, decadeslong positive impacts both on individuals and society as a whole, but you just don't want to pay for it?
Huh. Guess you'd prefer your taxes go to unemployment benefits, food stamps, public housing and prisons.
And to your post ... just say it ... #thepoornomatta

Anyhow, the good news is that CPS already offers free early childhood education.

[Pakuni]

#FakeNews #Lies

Labor costs can account for as much as 70% of total business costs; this includes employee wages, benefits, payroll and other related taxes.

https://www.paycor.com/resource-center/articles/closer-look-at-labor-costs/

[Not A Serious Person]

So, if I understand your argument here, it's that you and everyone else accepts that early childhood education has wide-ranging, decadeslong positive impacts both on individuals and society as a whole, but you just don't want to pay for it?
Huh. Guess you'd prefer your taxes go to unemployment benefits, food stamps, public housing and prisons.
And to your post ... just say it ... #thepoornomatta

Anyhow, the good news is that CPS already offers free early childhood education.

Thank you for saying $30k/year per student is not enough. Just keep paying more and more.

Now that we have settled, do you think the problem is taxes are too low?

Tell me this, Mayor Johnson ... why do you think for one second the current educational system is competent enough to take this one. They have failed at everything else.  Why isn't it just more wasted money and wasted lives?

Hint, Start with firing thousands of non-teachers in the public school system and use that to pay for it. If it is that important, isn't it worth firing 10,000 to 15,000 school administrators?