That’s correct - thanks for the correction. Please show us the source of those numbers. And aren’t they incorrect, i.e., it should be billions not millions (M) as you cite?
You seem to forget however, that it was Clinton & the Republican congress that were balancing the budget during those years, unlike Bush was cut taxes & kept on spending more.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,13:36) |
| That’s correct - thanks for the correction. Please show us the source of those numbers. And aren’t they incorrect, i.e., it should be billions not millions (M) as you cite? You seem to forget however, that it was Clinton & the Republican congress that were balancing the budget during those years, unlike Bush was cut taxes & kept on spending more. |
The chart for the appropriations was evidently listed in thousands of dollars, so it probably should have been billions instead of millions. I listed the amount from the appropriations columns from this Department of Education chart without making that adjustment.
Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that spending for education has increased under Bush, whom Tom mysteriously referred to as the anti-education president. If you prefer a balanced budget to spending for education, then it looks you and Tom will be at odds.
I think I would refer to Bush as the Anti-Education President solely on the basis that the average IQ in America has substantially dropped.
“Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.’’ -Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
“Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a - you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.” -Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004
“The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.” -Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
“After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain, we will not have an all-volunteer army. And yet, this week - we will have an all-volunteer army!” -Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004
“I couldn’t imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah.” -at a White House menorah lighting ceremony, -Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001
“I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.” -aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
“I’m the master of low expectations.” -aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
And still is.
KF
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If you prefer a balanced budget to spending for education, then it looks you and Tom will be at odds. |
You’re putting words into my mouth because I never said that. I believe that Tom is referring to the fact that Bush didn’t fully fund No Child Left Behind. I also believe Tom is referring to Bush not really being interested in science, math & reading/writing. He leaves that to his wife.
The other little deceptive trick you are using is that Tom already criticized Clinton, so your little numbers are meaningless to counteract Tom’s claim about Bush.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Clinton was NOT the education president. He did a lousy job on that front, no doubt about it. |
These numbers, by themselves, don’t really tell the story. You would need to look at inflation adjusted numbers to make any real comparison.
Actually, it’s mostly what Mike said at the end - that the numbers are deceptive, since they don’t reflect not only inflation but other sources of increasing costs. Concerning your false dichotomy between a balanced budget and funding education more aggresively, that’s an easy one, ksdb. Think about it: if it really is the case that education returns at the fantastic rate of about 400% in terms of tax dollars, then it is clearly part of the solution to a balanced budget. Some investments pay off when ti comes to tax time, some don’t. The war in Iraq, e.g., promises to be nothign but a money hole, and never produce a changed situation in terms of oil supply that would pay for it. Given that investing in education is soooooo economically effective, I think as a fiscal conservative you should favor it rather strongly. Not for any bleeding heart liberal reasons (those are for Mike and me) but for good, solid, patriotic business reasons.
| Quote (TomS @ Sep. 18 2006,17:01) |
| Actually, it’s mostly what Mike said at the end - that the numbers are deceptive, since they don’t reflect not only inflation but other sources of increasing costs. Concerning your false dichotomy between a balanced budget and funding education more aggresively, that’s an easy one, ksdb. Think about it: if it really is the case that education returns at the fantastic rate of about 400% in terms of tax dollars, then it is clearly part of the solution to a balanced budget. Some investments pay off when ti comes to tax time, some don’t. The war in Iraq, e.g., promises to be nothign but a money hole, and never produce a changed situation in terms of oil supply that would pay for it. Given that investing in education is soooooo economically effective, I think as a fiscal conservative you should favor it rather strongly. Not for any bleeding heart liberal reasons (those are for Mike and me) but for good, solid, patriotic business reasons. |
Honestly, what’s so deceptive about the numbers?? There was a single year jump of $14 Billion under Bush’s first budget.
That was a 33 percent increase over the previous year’s budget. There certainly wasn’t a 33 percent inflation rate and hopefully there was no 33 percent increase in education costs in one year alone. In five years, funding for education more than doubled. Have education costs doubled during that same time period??
The war in Iraq has a longterm goal to maintain peace and security; things you can’t really put a price tag on. But we do know the economy has steadily grown WHILE we’ve been at war. I agree wholeheartedly that Bush has not been a fiscal conservative, but that makes it all the more mystifying why he is so vilified by the left. As with the education example, he has been spending on things that the left usually supports, but they never give him credit. You guys need to open your eyes a little and let go of the partisan hatred.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,16:30) |
|
You’re putting words into my mouth because I never said that. |
You brought up the part about balancing the budget in your previous post. You put your own words in your mouth. Using the word “if” when referencing your comments means you can disagree and tell us what you really think.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,16:30) |
| I believe that Tom is referring to the fact that Bush didn’t fully fund No Child Left Behind. |
This is another liberal canard that just simply isn’t true. NCLB relies on states providing a funding component and meeting other requirements for eligibility. The left often ignores those requirements and accuses the BA of underfunding the program.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,16:30) |
| I also believe Tom is referring to Bush not really being interested in science, math & reading/writing. He leaves that to his wife. |
Maybe you should let Tom speak for himself. He does a better job of it. Besides, the claim about Bush is simply false: Here’s a story from earlier this year.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Bush says math, science economic tools WASHINGTON --Leaders in science and innovation have been clamoring for a breakthrough – a political one. They now seem to have won a spot on the agenda of President Bush and Congress. In his State of the Union speech, Bush said he wants to boost spending on science research, rigorous math and science teaching in high school, and help for young, struggling math students. It was just the kind of support that a broad range of educators, researchers and business leaders in the United States has been seeking. Math and science, fields considered the backbone of a skilled workforce and an innovative economy, have become U.S. vulnerabilities recently. {rest of story at link} |
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,16:30) |
| The other little deceptive trick you are using is that Tom already criticized Clinton, so your little numbers are meaningless to counteract Tom’s claim about Bush. |
No. Tom made a specific claim about Bush which has nothing to do with IFP Clinton. He claimed Bush was anti-education, yet the growth of the education budget and emphasis on education improvements under Bush clearly negate that claim.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 18 2006,16:30) |
| These numbers, by themselves, don’t really tell the story. You would need to look at inflation adjusted numbers to make any real comparison. |
More nonsense. The growth in the education budget has outgrown inflation. The highest inflation rate we’ve seen under Bush has been this year at slightly above 4 percent. This is easily covered since the education budget has more than doubled in the last six years. Just between 2005 and 2006 the education budget increased by 18 percent, easily outpacing current inflation rates.
Joe - now you just lie again. I never suggested that I prefer a balanced budget to spending for education. I simply stated what was happening during the later part of the Clinton years. Yet you infer that I might be making this claim.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| If you prefer a balanced budget to spending for education |
I agree that Tom needs to defend his own remarks. However, as to this argument, the figures by themselves do NOT tell the story. Both Clinton & Bush may be anti-education for all I know. Tom seemed to be suggesting that. Tom definitely states that Clinton did not spend enough on education, so what’s your freaking point? You do this all the time - confuse the issue being discussed.
All I know is that schools where I live suck. They suck because they don’t have enough money to build school rooms, hire teachers, buy books, etc., etc. This is why I send my kids to a private school. I can afford to do this because my wife is a teacher at this school. However, I would gladly pay a little more in taxes if the schools were better.
And I’ve witnessed the results of Bush’ No Child Left Behind philosophy. Schools are now just teaching kids to take tests, to memorize & do speed drills. Kids are taught now that they have to be perfect and that the answer has to be correct. When I was a kid, we used to get partial credit on math if we could show the method we used. No more - the answer has to be correct or it’s wrong.
There was a recent article in Newsweek called the New First Grade. Read it - that’s exactly what’s happening here in CA & it’s stressing kids out. It stressed my kids out. As a result of this article, interest in enrollment at my wife’s school is up.
Question - did Bush fully fund the increase ($3.9 billion) in Title I spending since the passage of the No Child Left Behind or not? I don’t know.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:09) | ||
| Joe - now you just lie again. I never suggested that I prefer a balanced budget to spending for education. I simply stated what was happening during the later part of the Clinton years. Yet you infer that I might be making this claim. <!–QuoteBegin>
|
What part of the word IF do you not understand?? Again, YOU brought up the part about balancing the budget. You seemed to support it because you acted like I forgot about it and then you took a potshot at Bush for cutting taxes and overspending. What was your point?? Were you just talking out of your ass??
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:09) |
| I agree that Tom needs to defend his own remarks. However, as to this argument, the figures by themselves do NOT tell the story. Both Clinton & Bush may be anti-education for all I know. Tom seemed to be suggesting that. Tom definitely states that Clinton did not spend enough on education, so what’s your freaking point? You do this all the time - confuse the issue being discussed. |
Nonsense. Tom brought up IFP Clinton as a deflection when it was shown that Bush has increased spending on education. I’ve kept the topic focused on Bush. What part of his education program has been “anti-education??” What part of the story is not addressed by his high level of funding to education?? There’s nothing confusing about this except for people who don’t want to admit they were wrong.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,12:09) |
| All I know is that schools where I live suck. They suck because they don’t have enough money to build school rooms, hire teachers, buy books, etc., etc. This is why I send my kids to a private school. I can afford to do this because my wife is a teacher at this school. However, I would gladly pay a little more in taxes if the schools were better. |
Then you’re dealing with a state issue. It’s not the job of the federal government to provide basic education. If you have complaints, go to your local school board and write your state representatives. Blaming Bush for local problems is nothing more than blind partisanship.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| It’s not the job of the federal government to provide basic education. |
Then it’s not the job of the federal government to take away education either, and that’s what No Child Left Behind does.
In the State of Washington there are many schools in rural or poor areas that are not up to the standards set forth in NCLB. While these schools get the same funding from the state as do other schools they are not in areas that can make up the difference necessary from outside sources, much of which is from the federal government.
Some schools are in areas are there is a very high per capita income. You want to guess which schools are getting the extra funding from the federal government and which are loosing it because of NCLB?
The federal governments efforts to force better results by restricting funds for under-performing schools (NCLB) is having the opposite affect. The rich get richer - the poor get poorer.
Down the road many students from these lesser funded areas are going to be at a severe disadvantage later on in life. Many can’t afford to go to college, so what they get in public school is all the education they will get and because of lowered scores they won’t be able to get scholarships as easily.
Investment in the future is what we do now for our children. While the intentions of NCLB are good (yes, I do believe this to be true) its methods are definitely not the way to accomplish what it is attempting to accomplish.
Fore the record, I brought up Clinton in the context of trying to enlarge the frame - we really need to look at this issue over the long term, from the 1960s to the present. In taht time frame the presidents I would classify as strong on education were Nixon and Carter. Reagan disassembled most of the funding for higher education (which is mainly what I have been thinking about here), and Clinton did very little to redress that - although he didn’t have a Democratic congress to work with, so it’s not all his fault, and he did get the “community college” tax cut, which is worth something. But let me ask you the question I asked first, ksdb: is it common for working class people to get a 4 year degree from an elite university and come out with no debt? How about that plus a law degree, and less than $2000 total debt? In terms of higher education, which as I have said empirically returns huge amounts in future taxes, no one has been pro education since Carter.
Now, primary and secondary education is a different matter. One thing is true: public schools are getting less and less funding per student, and are being asked to do more. Wealthy school districts are doing OK, but poor and workinng class districts are in crisis. Just come to Flint, and I will show you what I mean. More money is needed here, or else these kids will have reduced chances for future success - and that means more poveryt, more crime, more welfare costs, more medical costs for the community, lower quality of life for everyone, etc.
As for NCLB, it’s a piece of political shit - written by people who have political agendas and know very little about education in the trenches so to speak. I know, that’s just a general remark, but just ask teachers in public schools what they think of it.
Mike, it’s great that you can send your kids to private school, and I would if I could (and still might), but notice the effect: the wealthy leave public schools, and they degrade that much faster. Democracy requires strong public education, but I see no evidence that republicans really care about that connection - and years worth of votes that tell the opposite story.
#### right I’m partisan about it, ksdb! 
| Quote (TomS @ Sep. 19 2006,13:02) |
| Fore the record, I brought up Clinton in the context of trying to enlarge the frame - we really need to look at this issue over the long term, from the 1960s to the present. In taht time frame the presidents I would classify as strong on education were Nixon and Carter. Reagan disassembled most of the funding for higher education (which is mainly what I have been thinking about here), and Clinton did very little to redress that - although he didn’t have a Democratic congress to work with, so it’s not all his fault, and he did get the “community college” tax cut, which is worth something. But let me ask you the question I asked first, ksdb: is it common for working class people to get a 4 year degree from an elite university and come out with no debt? How about that plus a law degree, and less than $2000 total debt? In terms of higher education, which as I have said empirically returns huge amounts in future taxes, no one has been pro education since Carter. |
And again, what would that have to do specifically with President Bush being “anti-education??” You’ve cited systemic changes, but you’ve only looked at one end of things. College enrollments skyrocketed after WWII in part from the availability of the GI Bill. It used to be that not everyone could get a college education. Enrollments and colleges started growing dramatically and have never really slowed down. Now a college education is practically an expected part of life, and a four-year degree is barely worth more than a high school diploma in many cases. While college campuses have grown dramatically to accommodate demand, that growth requires more funding than most state and federal budgets can provide for. These costs have been passed on to the users who either save up or borrow to cover their expense. Somebody has to pay for it, it’s just a matter of deciding whom that should be.
| Quote (TomS @ Sep. 19 2006,13:02) |
|
Now, primary and secondary education is a different matter. One thing is true: public schools are getting less and less funding per student, and are being asked to do more. Wealthy school districts are doing OK, but poor and workinng class districts are in crisis. Just come to Flint, and I will show you what I mean. More money is needed here, or else these kids will have reduced chances for future success - and that means more poveryt, more crime, more welfare costs, more medical costs for the community, lower quality of life for everyone, etc. |
Again, these are local issues. It has never been the responsibility of the federal government to provide and maintain education at this level. Is it fair to ask taxpayers in other districts, counties or states to pay for the broken education system in Flint?? And will it really make a difference in the long run?? Everything you’ve said about this community makes it sound like there are much bigger problems than just the education system.
| Quote (TomS @ Sep. 19 2006,13:02) |
| As for NCLB, it’s a piece of political shit - written by people who have political agendas and know very little about education in the trenches so to speak. I know, that’s just a general remark, but just ask teachers in public schools what they think of it. |
People are resistant to change, especially when it requires them to be more accountable. The bottom line, however, that it was an effort to do something constructive. It comes up for renewal in 2007. If you don’t like it, you know what to do.
| Quote (TomS @ Sep. 19 2006,13:02) |
| Mike, it’s great that you can send your kids to private school, and I would if I could (and still might), but notice the effect: the wealthy leave public schools, and they degrade that much faster. Democracy requires strong public education, but I see no evidence that republicans really care about that connection - and years worth of votes that tell the opposite story. #### right I’m partisan about it, ksdb!
|
You admitted your last party leader was ineffective. Why do you begrudge the current administation which has actually tried to do something positive?? Makes no sense.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Again, these are local issues. It has never been the responsibility of the federal government to provide and maintain education at this level. Is it fair to ask taxpayers in other districts, counties or states to pay for the broken education system in Flint?? |
Couldn’t disagree with you more on the local vs. the federal issue. Education is a national goal, therefore the federal government should pay a key role. The federal government should be the great “equalizer”, i.e., it should tax people and make sure that “poor” areas get more money than “rich” areas, with the goal being that all schools are roughly equal. So yes, federal taxpayers should be help the school system in Flint.
But of course, if you don’t believe that money fixes or helps the quality of education, like you believe, then you would argue the way you do.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,14:35) |
| Couldn’t disagree with you more on the local vs. the federal issue. Education is a national goal, therefore the federal government should pay a key role. The federal government should be the great “equalizer”, i.e., it should tax people and make sure that “poor” areas get more money than “rich” areas, with the goal being that all schools are roughly equal. So yes, federal taxpayers should be help the school system in Flint. But of course, if you don’t believe that money fixes or helps the quality of education, like you believe, then you would argue the way you do. |
Money isn’t the only factor. Simply throwing money at a problem is not the way to fix things.
Here’s a story about the last survey to compare education and education spending levels among other countries. How is spending more money going to fix the problem??
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Report: U.S. No. 1 in school spending Test scores fall in middle of the pack WASHINGTON (AP) –The United States spends more public and private money on education than other major countries, but its performance doesn’t measure up in areas ranging from high-school graduation rates to test scores in math, reading and science, a new report shows. “There are countries which don’t get the bang for the bucks, and the U.S. is one of them,” said Barry McGaw, education director for the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which produced the annual review of industrialized nations. The United States spent $10,240 per student from elementary school through college in 2000, according to the report. The average was $6,361 among more than 25 nations. The range stretched from less than $3,000 per student in Turkey, Mexico, the Slovak Republic and Poland to more than $8,000 per student in Denmark, Norway, Austria and Switzerland. The report cited Australia, Finland, Ireland, Korea and the United Kingdom as examples of OECD nations that have moderate spending on primary and lower secondary education but high levels of performance by 15-year-olds in key subject areas. As for the United States, it finished in the middle of the pack in its 15-year-olds’ performance on math, reading and science in 2000, and its high-school graduation rate was below the international average in 2001 – figures highlighted by Education Secretary Rod Paige. The country fared better in reading literacy among fourth-graders, where it finished among the top scorers in 2001. But the declining performance as students grow older served as a warning to the nation, Paige said. “These results highlight an extremely important truth about our educational system: I think we have become complacent, self-satisfied and often lacking the will to do better,” Paige said. International benchmarks Appropriate spending has emerged as a key political issue this year as the nation’s schools deal with federal reforms. The No Child Left Behind law demands better performance from students and teachers, particularly in low-income districts, but critics say Republican leaders in Congress have spent too little on the effort. The report, released Tuesday, sets international benchmarks and identifies areas for improvement. Based on educational level, the report says the United States spends the most on higher education for every student and is a leading spender on primary and secondary education. Paige said the nation must fill the gap between it and other countries, and bridge another between students succeeding in American public schools and those falling behind. Within that promising fourth-grade reading showing in the United States, Paige said, is a revealing number: the higher the percentage of poor students, the lower the average score. “There’s no such thing as a ‘typical’ fourth-grader,” Paige said. "We want to go to each fourth-grader. We need to see who needs the help." The new federal law requires states to chart adequate yearly progress – not just for a school’s overall population, but for groups such as minorities and students who speak little English. Sanctions grow by the year for schools receiving low-income aid that don’t improve enough. Consequences range from letting students transfer to a better school within their districts to handing control of a poor-performing school to the state. “No other country is imposing such a rigorous requirement on its schools,” McGaw said. But from school boards to Congress, growing numbers of leaders say the federal government isn’t committing enough money to the task. States must, for example, expand their standardized testing and put a highly qualified teacher in every core class by 2005-06. Federal education spending has grown by $11 billion since President Bush took office, Paige said, but that includes spending beyond the first 12 grades. Even increased money for elementary and secondary education doesn’t cover the law’s sweeping expenses, said David Shreve of the National Conference of State Legislatures. “You can’t just mandate that things happen and then not follow up with the resources to make it happen,” said Shreve, senior director for the conference’s education committee. Comparisons of spending among countries is difficult, he added, because the systems vary widely. |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Again, these are local issues. It has never been the responsibility of the federal government to provide and maintain education at this level. |
For sake of argument, since it is true that these are local issues and not the responsibility of the federal government then the federal government has no right to set standards for the locally controlled school system or to withhold aid when those standards are not met. With that in mind the federal government should not be offering any federal funding for local schools at all, or if is chooses to continue to assist it should do so evenly across the board without strings.
You said the federal government has no responsibility at this level. Yet, No Child Left Behind does do just that. It sets federal standards and offers no assistance whatsoever to get to those standards, only punishment when they aren’t met. Based on your point of view, Joe, you should whole-heartedly be against NCLB as it is the federal government interfering with local school systems in a big and distructive way. Yet for some reason your arguments sound very pro-NCLB.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Money isn’t the only factor. Simply throwing money at a problem is not the way to fix things. |
OK then, how do you fix it then? Instead of always being contrary, show us some solutions.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| How is spending more money going to fix the problem?? |
Well for starters we could build some new buildings. Secondly, we could hire more teachers so there can be less than +30 kids per classroom. Thirdly, we could pay teachers more money so more “good” people would go into teaching. How’s that for a start?
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,16:22) |
|
OK then, how do you fix it then? Instead of always being contrary, show us some solutions. |
Contrary is when somebody calls Bush the anti-education president ignoring that he’s tried to provide solutions. So far the DOE seems to have a pretty good plan.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 19 2006,16:22) |
|
Well for starters we could build some new buildings. Secondly, we could hire more teachers so there can be less than +30 kids per classroom. Thirdly, we could pay teachers more money so more “good” people would go into teaching. How’s that for a start? |
These are all things that are happening now in many places around the country. A lot depends on local school districts. It’s not really in the best interest of the federal government to micromanage these types of situations. Nevertheless, research the DOE site, because they are taking efforts to assist in these areas.
For example, they just passed a program called the Teacher Incentive Fund earlier this year. Notice the negative spin offer by the teachers’ union representative. Some people you just can’t please.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Posted on Fri, Apr. 28, 2006 A $100 million incentive to improve teaching The new federal initiative will be used to fund merit rewards for improving student performance. Philadelphia will seek a share. By Susan Snyder Inquirer Staff Writer In a visit to Philadelphia yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings touted a $100 million federal fund to reward teachers and principals who raise student achievement in high-need schools, and city schools chief Paul Vallas was eager to apply for a share. Spellings said the fund could be used for “merit pay” plans for teachers and principals who improve performance in the schools. The Education Department next week will solicit funding applications from school districts and other interested parties. This strategy is part of the federal government’s attempt to offer incentives, rather than sanctions, to spur change. “We’re going to pay additional resources to people who work in more challenging environments and get better results with kids,” Spellings said during an early-afternoon news conference at the Philadelphia School District’s administration building. Her comments came at the U.S. Department of Education’s first summit on educational issues designed to help school districts reach wide-ranging goals under the federal No Child Left Behind law. Yesterday’s summit focused on teacher quality. Spellings told Vallas she chose Philadelphia for the summit launch because “you have great results and you’re doing great work, and I appreciate your long-standing support for No Child Left Behind.” The event drew hundreds of local educators and advocates and other regional experts. Spellings also addressed the deadline looming this summer for all teachers to become “highly qualified,” meaning they must be certified in the subject areas and grade levels that they teach. The federal and state governments decide in the coming weeks on what will happen to districts and personnel that fail to meet the goal, she said. In Philadelphia last June, about 86 percent of teachers were highly qualified, up from 85 percent the previous year, district officials said. The district did not have numbers for the current school year. Vallas said he would seek flexibility on the requirement. Most suburban districts in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have a higher percentage of highly qualified teachers. Vallas praised Spellings’ work and said he was anxious to apply for the teacher funding, as well as a share of another pot of $122 million proposed to help train teachers in high-poverty schools for work in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs. “Teachers and principals who work in tough environments need to be rewarded,” Vallas said of the teacher fund. "This gives school districts, hopefully like Philadelphia, and others [the chance] to present their ideas and present their models and have them tested." Philadelphia already pays $1,500 incentives to teachers who work in critical subject areas, and it grants tuition reimbursement up to $2,400 or three extra personal days and more training to teachers who work in 25 hard-to-staff or “incentive” elementary and middle schools. Vallas said the federal funding would allow the district to expand the program. But the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers isn’t eager. “I don’t think that merit pay works,” said Jerry Jordan, vice president of the teachers’ union, who attended yesterday’s session. "If we want to get highly qualified teachers in these locations, we have to improve the working conditions for teachers." The money should be used to lower class size, he said. Philadelphia caps class size at 30 in the primary grades and 33 in upper-level classes. Vallas also expressed interest in the AP funding; the district over the last several years has expanded AP and IB offerings in the high schools. |
ksdb, in my book education is really the key to a whole lot of problems we face in Flint and elsewhere. And think about it: if it really is true that investment in education pays back 4 fold in greater tax income, then no taxpayer would be footing the bill - they’d be getting more back for their money. It would be a way to lower taxes. So if one is really concerned with the tax burden, this is something that will really, really help. Granted it takes a few years for the effects to be felt, but only a few - like 5 or so. Tell me, wouldn’t you consider that a wise investment?
This is the thing about it - it’s a strategy that should appeal to both fiscal conservatives and wild-eyed radical liberals like myself. When something satisfies pretty much all criteria from all serious people, it really deserves consideration.
edit: Mike hit it on the head - lower the student-teacher ratio; and I would add, make higher education free or at least really inexpensive. And the thing is, it really wouldn’t cost that much to do it, not all that much given the size of the budget.
Sad little monkeys…Send 'em to work.
KF
| Quote (TomS @ Sep. 19 2006,19:41) |
| ksdb, in my book education is really the key to a whole lot of problems we face in Flint and elsewhere. And think about it: if it really is true that investment in education pays back 4 fold in greater tax income, then no taxpayer would be footing the bill - they'd be getting more back for their money. It would be a way to lower taxes. So if one is really concerned with the tax burden, this is something that will really, really help. Granted it takes a few years for the effects to be felt, but only a few - like 5 or so. Tell me, wouldn't you consider that a wise investment? This is the thing about it - it's a strategy that should appeal to both fiscal conservatives and wild-eyed radical liberals like myself. When something satisfies pretty much all criteria from all serious people, it really deserves consideration. edit: Mike hit it on the head - lower the student-teacher ratio; and I would add, make higher education free or at least really inexpensive. And the thing is, it really wouldn't cost that much to do it, not all that much given the size of the budget. |
Tom, we're already making the investment. We overspend compared to other countries. There are other problems with the system that need to be addressed. We finally have an administration that's taking positive steps to make changes. Give credit where credit is due and start holding the right people accountable at the local levels where the work isn't being done.