bnb you're probably right. Rudy's also an adulterer so I'm sure he'll fit right in with the "family values" crowd.
Higher funding isn't necessarily the answer. A great example would be the urban schooling system in Kansas City. Schools there have top of the line facilities. (things like a new chemistry lab, new gym, etc..) and YET, some schools there still have a dropout rate of greater than 50%. The reason for that isn't a lack of money. Rather, it's the fact that the administration is so corrupt. There is a 1 to 1 ratio between teachers and administrators in some of these schools. The money is there, it's just wasted on bureaucracy. In Houston, HISD is notorious for wasting money on unnecessary administrative positions and worthless projects. My Dad has done some contract work with them, and he could practically get them to pay whatever he wanted because the system is run so inefficiently. Money that should be going to students ends up getting wasted on garbage programs or the pockets of administrators. Additionally, teacher salaries are stagnant but funding for education is still rising. The discrepency is a direct result of a lack of accountability for administrators who have consistently mismanaged school systems. Those school districts that are lauded for their excellent schools are generally just managed better. That's not to say money isn't an issue. There are schools that are deprived of funds to buy basic items. There is a major funding inequality in this country and you can see it anywhere in the country. But I'm still skeptical of those who say that raising funding is the answer. Our systems are so bloated that for every dollar you put in, very very little will actually go for things like teacher salaries, books, etc.. unless the administration is solid which seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Now as for the question of vouchers. It's been a mixed bag so far. Yes, parent satisfaction has skyrocketed in places with vouchers. Milwaukee is probably the biggest example of voucher programs. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0523/p01s03-usgn.html) But there are plenty of problems with their system and I think it will take time before we know whether or not vouchers will work. I personally am not sure and preliminary examination of Milwaukee's success doesn't help either. But time will tell and we'll be able to judge them soon enough.
pro choice, pro gay rights, pro gun control AND and adulterer!!!! Are you sure he's running for the right party?
How does this explain the huge difference in academic performance between poor and middle class/wealthy students attending public schools. Is it just a coincidence, that schools and school systems serving poor students are incompetent or corrupt? Obviously if you pour money into any corrupt or incompetent system, you're not going to see results. Here's what I'm saying- Assume two school systems, both with administrations of roughly equal competence and integrity. One system serves middle class and wealthy students and is funded at a higher level. The other system serves poor students and is funded at a lower level. The most qualified teachers and administrators are going to flow to the middle/class wealthy system because of better pay and working conditions. That's just a basic market function. Hell, even if the two systems were funded at the same level, with equal teacher and administrative pay, the best candidates are going to tend to go to the middle class/wealthy district just because of the working conditions. Add to this dynamic, the fact that children who come from poverty enter school with significant language, reading readiness, and experiential deficits and over the course of their time in school, have to deal with much more difficult life issues that interfere with their education, than kids from middle class and wealthy families. To even come close to giving these kids an equal opportunity for academic success as their more well off peers, we need to provide an unequal (higher) level of funding. Sadly, the notion of providing more money per pupil to schools serving poor kids because they have a greater need is so radical that it is not even a blip on the radar screen of the public debate.
Don't speak too soon....you've never met her! Seriously....she is a big fan of the Vagina Monologues. As for me, I prefer blues music!
funny, those are the 2 i like the most out of the field we currently have... no senators please... but i agree new blood is needed, or an entire new party.
Without investigating their positions, just going by the vibe I get having seen them speak, I would probably choose Biden for the Dems. I don't even know who is on the radar for my Republicans, maybe an outsider would be a good idea with the pathetic ratings the pres and Republican congress are getting.
overall i am very sympathetic to that argument. but the results just dont show that more money helps. DC schools are the prime example. i understand defunding wont help. but i dont know exactly what the answer is.
Do you have some data showing that DC teachers and administrators are being paid more than their peers in the middle class and wealthy suburbs around DC? Or some information about DC schools having more resources to support their students, than the suburban schools in the area?
Funding alone won't help. But it is needed in many schools, and when combined with true reforms about class sizes, halting the extensive standardized testing going on, and other program changes it could make a huge difference. Kinky has the right idea. You need to put teachers in charge, and stop making political appointments when it comes to running school districts.
