Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The big question is why lagging states fail to measurably improve? With a median income gap of tens of thousands of dollars of income annually, college grad vs high school grad, why in the world are the laggards staying with the status quo, as if all is well?
Failed public schools and lack of funds are a main problem.
Failed public schools and lack of funds are a main problem.
Lack of funds???? Surely you jest! One of the most sacred tenets of conservatism is cutting funds for schools because "money doesn't help education."
Of course, that would explain why New England is so much more prosperous and successful … we are far more willing to fund our schools than most other parts of the country.
We're also far less likely to insert Christianity into education.
This was always one of my favorite Doonesbury strips:
Lack of funds???? Surely you jest! One of the most sacred tenets of conservatism is cutting funds for schools because "money doesn't help education."
Of course, that would explain why New England is so much more prosperous and successful … we are far more willing to fund our schools than most other parts of the country.
We're also far less likely to insert Christianity into education.
This was always one of my favorite Doonesbury strips:
...and you do it through the states. When the right complains about fudning, it's usually about funding a massive federal bureaucracy.
The reality is education is funded less internally in the same states that whine about massive federal intrusion. If they spent more using state money, they would possibly have a valid argument regarding local vs federal, but their argument is a smokescreen to take the focus off their own unwillingness to properly fund education.
More money does not guarantee great results, but underfunding does guarantee underachieving. It is also future generation economic genocide, but as long as Johnny gets that key first down in Friday nights football game in Anytown, Texas, that is all pa really cares about. Johnny's future destitute lifestyle is not a concern of his.
Lack of funds???? Surely you jest! One of the most sacred tenets of conservatism is cutting funds for schools because "money doesn't help education."
Of course, that would explain why New England is so much more prosperous and successful … we are far more willing to fund our schools than most other parts of the country.
We're also far less likely to insert Christianity into education.
This was always one of my favorite Doonesbury strips:
Please stop. I want to get into a good college ... Bwahahahahaha.
Yes you do, why is that? maybe because of the all the high income earner,
Also we want school vouchers, then again all those teachers unions have such a stranglehold on education.
But then gain its ok to send kids to failing schools as long as incompetent teachers keep their jobs and union thugs get their their hand outs, and prevent parents and student getting a choice in where and how they get to educate their kids.
The reality is education is funded less internally in the same states that whine about massive federal intrusion. If they spent more using state money, they would possibly have a valid argument regarding local vs federal, but their argument is a smokescreen to take the focus off their own unwillingness to properly fund education.
More money does not guarantee great results, but underfunding does guarantee underachieving. It is also future generation economic genocide, but as long as Johnny gets that key first down in Friday nights football game in Anytown, Texas, that is all pa really cares about. Johnny's future destitute lifestyle is not a concern of his.
Define "properly funding education" Is throwing money into a failed system properly funding education?
Define "properly funding education" Is throwing money into a failed system properly funding education?
It means not valuing low taxation at all costs. It means not ranking amongst the lowest in spending per student every year while also ranking in the same tier in terms of results. We need to approach it differently, not on the basis of cost control first, but on the basis of emulating what higher performing states have done first.
Instead, the states in the bottom 25% emulate what others in the bottom 25% did, and than are actually shocked at their failure rates.
The reality is education is funded less internally in the same states that whine about massive federal intrusion. If they spent more using state money, they would possibly have a valid argument regarding local vs federal, but their argument is a smokescreen to take the focus off their own unwillingness to properly fund education.
Some truth to that depending on the state. In some states, it should be prioritized more and in some there just may not be much money. The fudning structure also matters. If they are set up to be funded by individual districts with some state help, then the location matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
More money does not guarantee great results, but underfunding does guarantee underachieving.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
It is also future generation economic genocide,
Certainly doesn't help, neither does trillions in debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
but as long as Johnny gets that key first down in Friday nights football game in Anytown, Texas, that is all pa really cares about. Johnny's future destitute lifestyle is not a concern of his.
That's a bit of a broad brush. There are people like that, of course, but I could find them in any state. I could also point out the elsments of the culture in the inner cities across this country that frown upon academic acheivement, but that may not fit your narrative.
The better question is, when will the states with below average college graduation rates put more stock into building their future infrastructure , yound minds, and realize early 20th century brainless manual labor positions will not be coming back to raise the median standard of living in any region in a meaningful way?
they have.
educational spending is not sufficient to solve the social and cultural problems that exist.
bad parenting is common in the south, to the extent that many children are falling behind before they enter pre-school. You can't blame the state educational system on the status of the 3 year olds entering school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
I'm insinuating that education accounts for it.
The South could have had as high a concentration of educational facilities if it chose in the past 150 years since the end of the Confederacy. It didn't.
North Carolina is a prime example of the limitations of educational spending.
North Carolina was at the forefront of educational investment in the south. They poured money into public education.
What happened? A strong higher ed system developed. White northerners moved south and built a strong economy in certain cities like Raleigh and Charlotte. Yet -- the poor blacks living in Scotland County are in just as bad of shape as the poor blacks across the border in Marlboro County, in South Carolina, where public education spending was a much lower priority.
furthermore .... i don't even know if that premise (that the south underfunds its schools) is accurate in the first place. Some of the lowest-performing states have some of the highest % of spending on education. If spending leads to better education, then why don't West Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas, Alabama, etc. dominate educational performance?
State + Local spending on education, as a % of GDP:
Vermont 8.79%
West Virginia 8.33%
New Mexico 8.28%
Arkansas 7.64%
Alabama 7.33%
Michigan 7.12%
South Carolina 6.91%
Mississippi 6.89%
Montana 6.65%
Wisconsin 6.65%
Kentucky 6.63%
Alaska 6.62%
Ohio 6.57%
Iowa 6.51%
Utah 6.42%
Maine 6.35%
Wyoming 6.29%
New Hampshire 6.00%
Pennsylvania 5.93%
Rhode Island 5.93%
Kansas 5.89%
New York 5.87%
New Jersey 5.87%
Georgia 5.76%
Maryland 5.75%
Nebraska 5.72%
Indiana 5.70%
North Dakota 5.43%
Minnesota 5.41%
Oklahoma 5.39%
Oregon 5.38%
Washington 5.25%
Texas 5.25%
North Carolina 5.23%
Connecticut 5.21%
Idaho 5.18%
Missouri 5.17%
Virginia 5.17%
California 5.13%
Louisiana 5.11%
Florida 5.10%
Illinois 5.03%
Hawaii 5.00%
Arizona 4.99%
South Dakota 4.97%
Delaware 4.89%
Massachusetts 4.86%
Colorado 4.83%
Tennessee 4.71%
Nevada 4.31%
District of Columbia 1.99%
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
