Sasaki Kojiro 23:01 11-08-2006
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
The scary thing about 'more money for education'? There's relatively little correlation between the amount of money spent per student and how well students do in school. If more money actually worked, I would actually support it. But Western states (Utah, Colorado, New Mexico) spend less per student than Southern states (North Carolina, Alabama) but they do markedly better. States in the Northeast have not kept up in growing the per-student spending, falling to the upper third from the top, but their test scores remain top of the list.
The problem with education in America is the NEA. Plain and simple. They don't want to require teachers to do their jobs, and incompetent teachers get rewarded along with the good ones (and there's plenty of those). Add to that so much class time is taken up with enacting social policy these days, it's very hard for teachers to actually teach.
Quit with the "social experiments" like the schools out in California making kids pretend to be Muslims for a month, and teach the 3Rs.
I understand what Dems say about standardized tests, that in the end, kids learn how to take a standardized test, not a real education. But by any yardstick, we are failing our children miserably, and if vouchers aren't the answer, fine, propose one. But "let's just give the schools more money and hope the problem goes away" is a recipe for more failure. If schools really need more money, then lay it out and explain how it will improve student performance. But don't just handwave with 'more money for education'.
Yeah, but all that shows is that they are either spending money on the wrong things or that standardized tests are a lousy measure. Probably both.
I would imagine that raising teacher salaries would eventually be effective in raising quality of education.
Also, according to Crazed Rabbit, private schools are the best, and what are private schools if not public schools with more money?
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO