both of them...
my mind hurts.
:P
Ross wrote:
Don't know where you got your education, Miggle, but that's "peeling".
�
It's patent nonsense to say that "the lack of a decent physical plant is a direct indicator of Philadelphia's commitment to education."
�
The lack of a decent physical plant is the direct result of racist residential segregation. Step across the border into the white suburbs if you think that isn't true. Quality of physical plant is directly correlated with the wealth of the district. In Amerikkka the white people have the money so the white people get the decent schools.
�
Talk to some of the truly dedicated educators who give their lives to teaching in the Philly school system and hear what they have to say about the President's demonic unfunded "No child left behind" racist initiative.
�
Don't make me puke Miggle. Stick to talking about water heaters and chimneys where you seem to know partially whereof you speak.
�
</x-tad-bigger>Ross Bender
http://rosslynnbender.org/blogger.html
On Mar 15, 2005, at 11:55 AM, William H. Magill wrote:
On 14 Mar, 2005, at 12:05, Peter Coyle wrote:
We can't afford enough teachers, but we can afford to purchase and maintain laptops?
50 million spent on one school?
Seriously, I could cry.
The problem for your tears is ... the physical plant of the Philadelphia Public School System is pathetic.
One of the reasons that the Philadelphia School System CONSTANTLY has teaching VACANCIES is not the lack of funding for teacher salaries, but the fact that nobody wants to work here!
"Laptops" are a red herring. They cost less than $2000 each if you buy Apple. Less than half that amount if you go with the Microsoft monopoly.
I know several recent graduates, Philadelphia residents, K-12 teachers, who would rather remain unemployed in teaching than work in the Philadelphia Public School System -- period. ... security is one of the least of their concerns. All are on waiting lists for both local Suburban School districts and out-of-state Districts.
Decrepit facilities, from pealing paint and lack of desks to lack of "contemporary tools," -- yes, computers and laptops -- heads their list of objections. They see the lack of a decent physical plant as a direct indicator of Philadelphia's commitment to education. [Remember the broken window theory? True or not it has a significant impact.]
The School District of Philadelphia is/has embarked on a significant Capital improvement program to build new replacement schools in various locations around the city.
I don't know the actual numbers, but based on experience with various construction projects, my guess is that the total difference between a "classic" school building and one that has been brought in to the Internet age is less than 2-3% of the total cost of construction. The difference in cost of additional or different materials is insignificant when compared to the labor costs involved in the project. Attempting to retrofit existing buildings to support modern teaching methods or contemporary (let alone future) technology is exorbitant!
Lastly, the cost of building a new school comes from the Capital Budget, which is supported by bond issues and the like, not from the Operating Budget which is where the teacher's salaries come from.
Additionally, this new school will in fact CREATE something on the order of 23 NEW teaching positions (700/30) alone and probably an equal number of administrative positions associated with the school.
T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
