From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The War on Schools Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:19:30 -0500
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 10:13:47AM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
> Yet, as far as i can see. there isn't one constructive suggestion in > this entire editorial.
I thought it was implied that some or all of the money that was spent on waging war in Iraq should instead be spent on schools and education projects.
Okay, I can see that, but unless the Fed just gives the money to the states and somewhat illegally restricts its use for education, we're back at square one, no? Does the Fed Govt currently fund state school systems in any way?
While I don't really agree with that, I do think education is quite under-funded. There are a number of other things that could be cut to finance better education. NASA and anti-missile projects come to mind.
Education is _very_ underfunded. Teachers definitely need to be paid more and the system needs more money for basics. (My wife's an educator... you won't see an argument from me on that!) :)
Considering what we may have started with the DPRK, perhaps cutting funding to antimissile systems isn't such a great idea right now. :(
*sigh*
Jon
I'm going to take the third side in this debate, because I don't agree with you and I certainly don't agree with the idiot. This will be too short though so there are major holes.
First, and of course everyone knows this, there is a department of education so the federal government is involved in local education. Unfortunately they set the rules but provide little funding. I know the feds do provide monies. I think the number one idea would be to disband the whole department of education at the federal level.
Second. No disrespect for you or your wife, but "Teachers definitely need to be paid more" makes my blood run cold. Only for this reason! Education is so top heavy that a lot of money that could go to higher teacher salaries goes instead to administrators and others who have no real role in education. (In PA) throw in uninformed school boards that spend money left and right because there has never been a limit to what they could tax. I cannot find per-capita rates but there was a large amount of money that flowed into Philadelphia for decades with no improvement. I know one study done that showed higher per-capita rates did not equal better education.
Third would be buildings and sports. There is certainly nothing that says we must make athletes out of school kids. How is that education? (I'm not saying they shouldn't teach kids to be fit, but a look in a mirror and outside my window shows they failed miserably. And europeans are 'gaining' on us!) We don't need million dollar high school football stadiums. (and I love football, don't get me wrong). For the hundredth time I want to ask: do europeans or Auzzie schools directly fund sports or is it done on a club/town level? Buildings are another boondoggle. PA wanted to pass a measure: come up with three standard buildings for schools, so each and every district didn't spend millions just for a school design before one shovelful of dirt was turned. Of course that idea was quashed.
Kevin T. - VRWC maybe more later
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
