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.
Utter nonsense. It's the Republicans who fight funding schools with well paid teachers and adequate facilities.
Nope. Many of the school districts with the worst results spend the most money per student per year. Washington, DC and Camden, NJ schools, for example.
Funding isn't the problem. Democrats' and educators' systemic institutional racism and deliberate oppression is the problem.
Nope. Many of the school districts with the worst results spend the most money per student per year. Washington, DC and Camden, NJ schools, for example.
Funding isn't the problem. Democrats' and educators' systemic institutional racism and deliberate oppression is the problem.
Uh no.
The problem is bloated administrative staffs and salaries. That money could be better used for students and families in those communities.
So, its not the AMOUNT of money. Its the WAY its spent.
Nope. Many of the school districts with the worst results spend the most money per student per year. Washington, DC and Camden, NJ schools, for example.
Funding isn't the problem. Democrats' and educators' systemic institutional racism and deliberate oppression is the problem.
Again your logic is flawed. That some districts do not do well with large per pupil payments simply proves that some districts do not deal well with their funding. It in no way proves that underfunded districts will not do better if properly funded.
Again the simple model. If you pull half the students out of a school but leave the same funding the school will do better virtually every time. Whether that is a good use of the money is another question. And there will be some school that does it and gets worse. That is because there are many other variables. The Kansas City schools are a good example. How many teachers were fired and new high skilled teachers brought in? Basically none. They simply increased the salaries of everyone in the district. And sure enough nothing changed.
The problem is bloated administrative staffs and salaries. That money could be better used for students and families in those communities.
So, its not the AMOUNT of money. Its the WAY its spent.
Teachers are paid WAY too much in salaries plus benefits plus retirement benefits, as well. Almost all the taxpayer money goes to bloated school and admin staff salaries and benefits.
STOP the soft bigotry of low expectations for minorities, and get teachers who don't just warm a desk seat for increasingly higher pay that climbs according to years on the job instead of actual effectiveness.
Teachers are paid WAY too much in salaries plus benefits plus retirement benefits, as well. Almost all the taxpayer money goes to bloated school and admin staff salaries and benefits.
Again your logic is flawed. That some districts do not do well with large per pupil payments simply proves that some districts do not deal well with their funding. It in no way proves that underfunded districts will not do better if properly funded.
It in no way proves they will, either. We already know that court-mandated UNLIMITED funding made not one bit of difference in the Kansas City Public Schools experiment.
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.
