I've been in the education business off and on for 40 years. I read editorials and "leditors" (letters to the editor) where the author complains about overpaid university professors and complains that they're all ultra-liberal. Well, it's partly true, although I have taught mostly at Christian colleges and universities where the faculty is relatively conservative with a definite preponderance of Republicans mixed with more or less conservative Democrats. Of course, we are regarded as religious nuts who still teach Creation as a viable alternative to pure random naturalistic evolution. The charge of liberalism is largely true on state campuses. Not many are really overpaid; most went to college for 9 years or more at no small expense to qualify for the positions they hold. I personally spent over 11 years in graduate school, both part-time and full-time, and ended up with more degrees than a thermometer. Those degrees allowed me to keep one job and obtain several others in succession. It wasn't easy.
Let's dispose of the college problem first. Reasons for high costs:
The grass doesn't grow any faster than 50 years ago, nor does the paint peel any faster or the snow get any deeper. Faculty still teach classes averaging 10-30 students and a few huge lecture sections of 400. Students still eat just 3 meals a day plus some coffee and snacks. Plumbing does not clog any more often; light bulbs don't burn out more often; floors don't get dirtier. I guess we do need more parking per student as they almost always bring a car, compared to 50 years ago when only half or so had cars.
Faculty pay has not risen proportional to tuition; in fact, during the 70s (The Decade That Fashion Forgot), average faculty salaries lost 20% of purchasing power while tuition kept up with the Consumer Price Index. I do know that the faculty didn't get the money; otherwise I would have made $300,000.00 this past year, more or less. (Trust me; not even close! Not close to a third of that!) Cooks, maintenance and security personnel didn't get the money either.
Health care is an increased cost. I'll grant you that, but $300,000.00 worth? Each?
Retirement? They've matched faculty contributions, usually up to 5 or 10 percent, for all this time. It's called "defined contributions" which means if the stock and bond markets do well, we retire in comfort; if not, we become greeters at Wal-Mart. Once we retire, the colleges have nothing to do with us financially, except that we keep getting calls from very nice student volunteers asking for contributions to "scholarship funds". (You can't make this stuff up!) I guess they keep calling every year just in case we win the lottery.
Now here's a real problem.
For the past umpteen years, teachers, policemen, firemen and General Motors employees have been promised (courtesy of the unions mostly) that they will receive, say, 80% of their pay during retirement. I don't blame them for negotiating this, in that the employees of Enron (as one specific example) were badgered into owning only Enron stock in their 401(k) accounts; then, when the company went under they had nothing. It would have been the same for GM employees, at least in theory, if they had had 401(k)s invested in GM stock. (Trust me on this: I had some GM stock and what's left of it is worth way less than the commission to sell it!)
Back to the teachers. So one of the things that's happened is that the Baby Boomers are retiring right and left, have been for years (they started getting their 30 years in roughly 1997, at which point they started retiring). So now we have school districts paying out, let's say $20 million in salaries for classroom teachers. Then there is another $15 million paid out to the retirees. Very soon they will be paying out as much or more to the retirees as they do to the teachers. So we have a teacher making $30,000.00 in the classroom, another, say, $10,000.00 in benefits (health, etc.) but the school pays out $70,000.00 because they're supporting another teacher, retired, in addition. (OK, so "the state" pays the retirement where you live; it's still coming out of the taxpayers' pockets.) You could say the schools get a "two-fer" here; hire one teacher and then pay for two.
I'm sure that this is the case with some state universities as well as public schools.
There are communities now where the retired police and firemen get no retirement. The choice is between paying the retirees and having police and fire protection. This does not help the situation a bit, because current employees are pretty much convinced that there will be no retirement funds for them either. At this point, Social Security is about all they have, and it's not much to live on. The tax money is simply not there to pay for police, firemen, fix the potholes, run the courts, pay the electric bill, maintain street and traffic lights, catch the stray dogs, feed the prisoners and all that other stuff that cities have to do, plus pay all these people who are not actually working.
What's the difference between New York City (or name of your town here) and the federal government? Answer: New York City can't print money.
Now let's suppose that we have enough money for the schools. Would we still have problems?
There is a school about a mile from us, and there is a teacher I will call Ms. Suzi. Let's look in on Ms. Suzi's classroom. On any given day, several of the pupils have at least one parent in jail. (I am not making this up! Her real name isn't Suzi, but that's the only fabrication. Information comes from an impartial observer whom I know very well.) Almost all of the pupils are from "poor" neighborhoods. Education is not a priority in the home (see below). Ms. Suzi spends about half of her time telling them to sit down and shut up. (Literally. 50%. This is not an exaggeration.) Discipline is almost nonexistent. Her salary and promotions depend on these students doing well on the state-mandated reading and math exams. Ms. Suzi really needs a couple of assistants ("aides") but those (potential) salaries are being paid to 58-year-old retirees who are busy griping that their property taxes are too high while they get the boat ready for summer. (At this point I must say that I don't blame them for not wanting to work until age 65, given the working conditions!)
Another problem is that we are mandated to "mainstream" the "developmentally challenged" (retarded), "differently abled" (handicapped), and the A.D.D.s (discipline problems). They receive all the attention for obvious reasons. A fairly bright student receives no attention and, being bored, becomes another discipline problem. (I won't go into teachers "diagnosing" students as having A.D.D./A.D.H.D. and the school nurse prescribing daily Ritalin so they spend the day spaced out. That's a whole 'nother topic.)
Now we get into the home life. Ignoring for the moment those homes where at least one parent is in jail and the "single" moms, we have a more "normal" situation. However, Dad doesn't see the importance of anything beyond the 8th grade. He got along fine with an 8th grade education until the factory closed, and if that dirty Republican governor would just bring back the factories all would be well. No reason the kids can't get by without high school.
Many communities have created "charter schools". These have a "charter", for example to emphasize the arts, or maybe science. The students in these schools are the better students since there are entrance exams or required GPAs. Then the parents and the "regular" schools complain that they are left with all of the problems. If the charter school has a problem student, they can send that student back to the "regular" school. Most of the schools tend to become worse over time as you might surmise. This is "unfair" to the (mythical?) students who want to learn but who do not qualify for the charter school for whatever reason, since their school becomes worse.
On the other hand, students in the charter school have a somewhat better chance of learning something. Notice that I said "chance". Some charter schools do not differ significantly from the other schools on the state-mandated tests. I would guess that the students and teachers are happier, but at what cost? I would also guess that many of the charter schools, if not most, do significantly better on the tests. All told, I would vote to give charter schools a chance.
There are two main reasons for home schooling. First, the children can be taught patriotic and religious precepts that are almost totally missing in public schools. Second, the children can learn in a non-threatening environment.
Home schooling works well if the parent (usually the mother) is reasonably well educated and the children have no major problems. Good materials are available and most states require periodic testing to make sure that the home-schoolers are keeping up with their grade level. There are also many opportunities not afforded to students in public schools, such as trips to museums, concerts and national parks, even overseas, during the school year. Many times a high-school teacher or college professor volunteers in the evenings to teach science or math ("the hard stuff") to groups that meet in homes. As for opportunities in sports and social interaction, the home-schoolers in most areas meet periodically to take these field trips as a group, as well as for participation in various sports. The education does not take place in a vacuum. Talking with many of these 10-year-old home schoolers is like talking with an adult.
As a college professor, I have had many home schoolers in my classes and they almost universally do well in class, are articulate and able to write well.
Private schools are probably more expensive per student than home schools, unless you count how much money Mom would make if she worked outside the home. The materials are not exactly cheap, and those field trips cost something also.
However, (worst-case scenario here) the actual cost per pupil in Washington, DC is around $24000.00 per year. BOTE (Back Of The Envelope) calculation: $1.2 billion budget, 50,000 students more or less gives $24000.00 per student. For the state of Indiana, it's about $9000.00 and for Maryland it's about $12000.00 (source: Education Intelligence Agency, eiaonline.com). Most private schools do the job for less than $1000.00 per month or $9000.00 for the school year. (Source: Center for Education Reform, edreform.com). The most elite of these schools, like the one where Chelsea Clinton went, Sidwell Friends School, is still under $33000.00 per year. (My guess is that they use gold-plated screens for the Power Points. Ha ha just kidding! It's the caviar, truffles and escargot for lunch. Seriously, don't ask me!)
A large number of private schools are parochial in nature. Catholic schools are extremely common. The Baptists aren't far behind in number of schools if not total enrollment.
Many public-school proponents complain that the private schools are "sucking away" all the best students from the public school systems. Good point; however, would you want your child going to a school where violence is the norm? And the private schoolers complain in turn about the home schoolers who "suck away" much of their clientele.
Our experience is that private schools are not all that wonderful. The social pecking order makes life difficult for the student if the father is "nobody important", like top management or college dean. Children are naturally cruel, even the "Christians".
However, the education received is for the most part vastly superior to public schools. Students are taught patriotism and morality in a far less-threatening environment, as well as academic subjects.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA!
Here is what is happening to colleges, right now, today, this semester: the Department of Education is mandating certain requirments if the students at the college are to continue to be eligible for Federal loans and grants. In other words, shape up or you're out of business! You've been taking this money for so long that you can't get along without it. You're addicted.
There are a few colleges such as Grove City in PA and Hillsdale in MI that do not accept even this form of "government" money. However, their respective accreditation bodies are forcing them into line because, if the accreditation body does not force every college to conform, Federal funding will be cut off for every college in their jurisdiction. (I am not making this up!) The only "safe" colleges at the moment are unaccredited, such as Tennessee Temple, Pensacola Christian and Bob Jones University. (However, lack of accreditation means that their students find it difficult if not impossible to go to graduate school or get a job as a public school teacher.)
Now private schools take warning: Vouchers are the quickest way to fall under total State control and you will end up just like the public schools. Eventually they will "get" you through the accrediting agencies but that will take longer. In any case you will not be allowed to teach religious subjects and so on. (Home schoolers take note of all this! Your turn is coming!)
So keep up the good work, private schools and home schoolers, but be aware that government money leads to government control.