If you feel Arizona education is poor ... (Phoenix, Chandler: neighborhoods, best school)

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Justabystander

God, I am glad that you are not my parent growing up. Libraries are still an area of adventure and discovery, and while there is the internet, there is a world of books which helps with reading comprehension, Libraries in the Midwest and East thrive; education has a place and libraries aid in that education.

Our son is currently at Harvard Medical School. Our daughter is a dentist. So I don't think we starved them intellectually. It's a public forum so I'll leave it at that. But they had many top accolades that most parents dream about.

Every school has a library. So of course they were in a "library" (at their school). My point is that there are too many now. I'd shut 2/3 of them down around the communities and put those $$'s into the schools. Our kids read a lot of books. We bought them at garage sales or at stores. I still read several hours a day too... On the internet.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I haven't been to the library in 15 years. IMO as a country, we have way too many libraries.

I have always been a supporter and users of libraries, but I think we need to rethink the number of libraries that we have, as well as the functions of libraries.

I went to the library for the first time in a long time about a month ago.

The computers in the library were being used by young people playing video games. I don't want my tax dollars used for that.

The busiest part of the library seemed to be checking out entertainment DVDs. I don't want my tax dollars used for that.

And then there were the homeless people camping out in the library. I don't want my tax dollars used for that.

If I could voted to close the libraries on that day, I would have.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I have always been a supporter and users of libraries, but I think we need to rethink the number of libraries that we have, as well as the functions of libraries.

I went to the library for the first time in a long time about a month ago.

The computers in the library were being used by young people playing video games. I don't want my tax dollars used for that.

The busiest part of the library seemed to be checking out entertainment DVDs. I don't want my tax dollars used for that.

And then there were the homeless people camping out in the library. I don't want my tax dollars used for that.

If I could voted to close the libraries on that day, I would have.

Hum. Sounds rational to me^^.

[Slater]

There are (amazingly) poor families across this nation that don't have (or can't afford) Internet access. The local library would seem to be an important resource for these particular kids.

[wase4711]

libraries have always been a big part of our lives; we use them for so many other things, in addition to "checking out" paper books...activities, adult education opportunities, craft classes, digital books, passes to many of the local hotspots that otherwise have high admission fees,(ie, botanical garden)and, its nice out here how you can be a member of almost any cities library, even if you dont live there; we are members of the Phoenix, Peoria, and Glendale libraries..

IMO, anything that might actually encourage people to read more is a good thing..

[ringler24]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

You want motivated teachers. If you underpay a teachers and screw with their wages, they are human and they won't be too motivated. In order to get brighter, more passionate teachers, you need to pay more than AZ wages. So it would be like saying that how much you pay and engineer or mechanic or _________ doesn't correlate to their overall performance.

That all said, the reason you don't see a correlation with teacher salaries and academic performance is because too many kids "coast". As you said, THE #1 reason better test scores happen because it starts at home (expectations, parents who work with their kids at home, etc).

Also, often the highest paid teachers are in districts where teachers don't want to work. As in the hoods. Those are also locations where they spend the highest $$ per pupil. MPLS inner cities for example spend $8K more per student that a good burb (i.e. they spend around $20K per kid). Teacher wages are part of the reasoning BUT they produce terrible results. It's why you will never get an accurate correlation of wages or $$'s spent in the classroom in comparison to performance. Let's agree. If you spend $40K per kid per year, it won't help in the wrong district of kid. You would basically have to hire a new parent to get results. lol

My point is as follows. IF you spend more money on students and more $$ on teachers and IF you have motivated students (a BIG "if"), you will get smarter students. Because the law of economics don't stop working with K-12.

But if I don't toss out the outliers, I can "prove" to you that the more you spend, the worse the results. I would simply compare a catholic private school ($5K per student) versus an inner city school (at $22K per kid) and show you that spending less money gets you better. If I was stupid enough to propose that, you should give me one of these . Therefore, people who want to prove their point that spending more == no better results leave in the MASSIVE outlier called baby-sitting districts that skew the results. An honest debate should be only spend more when families or students prove they are trying; else it is a waste.

All I can say is I'm glad I sent our kids to a district that was well funded full of motivated teachers. So while 35% didn't pass minimum standards, our kids were in the top tier of performers on a national level. I'm convinced going to a well funded district for our family helped. To tie it into the thread, our kids never went to the library. That's old school.

Where are you getting your stats that suburban districts spend LESS per pupil than urban districts?

[aileesic]

Pouring money into schools and more libraries isn't of any use if students are unable to grasp what is being taught and what they are reading. And it's not just about good parenting, it's about parents with a combination of advantages (genetics, financial, family, culture, whatever else) and their endless connections to resources necessary in raising better kids. It's like that everywhere.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by Slater

There are (amazingly) poor families across this nation that don't have (or can't afford) Internet access. The local library would seem to be an important resource for these particular kids.

Unlike some here I use the library often and prefer actual books over e-books. When visiting the library I see the Kid's Corner computers being used almost exclusively for on-line gaming and the computers for everyone else being used by adults for stupid looking games and other inane internet activities (not including CD ). I would guess that 10% of the public computers are being used for productive activities.

Access to all the garbage on the internet is not a given right and the whole rural argument and the taxes that have gone into it are dubious at best.

[Burning Madolf]

Originally Posted by aileesic

Pouring money into schools and more libraries isn't of any use if students are unable to grasp what is being taught and what they are reading. And it's not just about good parenting, it's about parents with a combination of advantages (genetics, financial, family, culture, whatever else) and their endless connections to resources necessary in raising better kids. It's like that everywhere.

Absolutely, only the rich and connected can learn to read.

[49erfan916]

But i thought the east valley has good schools.