From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 30-Mar-15 19:13, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 30-Mar-15 17:26, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
      
   >>>>In my state, whenever they argue that there should be more state   
   >>>>funding for schools, that means a shift from property tax support   
   >>>>to income tax support because the state hasn't levied property   
   >>>>taxes in decades (and isn't likely to in future).   
      
   >>>>So, if schools improve,   
      
   >>>Spending more on schools doesn't improve performance; in fact, the   
   >>>worst-performing schools _already_ have the highest costs per   
   >>>student. The reason is that most of the money ends up going to   
   >>>overhead, such as executive salaries, consultants, security and   
   >>>corporate welfare.   
      
   >>I'm not arguing that lots of spending is ineffective. I am fed up   
   >>with those who claim, We're a poor community! We can't afford to   
   >>improve our own schools (or whatever the government service is). We   
   >>need state assistance!   
      
   >Well, here, the state tells them if they want more money, then they   
   >should raise their property taxes.  End of discussion.  The state is   
   >essentially permanently bankrupt--by design.   
      
   >>Well, no, what you can't afford is NOT to improve schools! That's   
   >>what keeps your land values to very low.   
      
   >The "performance" of the schools is almost entirely driven by the income   
   >of the students' parents.  Spending more (or less) on schools has no   
   >effect, so the entire discussion is moot.   
      
   That's a whole different discussion. I have strong objections to school   
   performance measures, and I think they harm more than they help. In fact,   
   I think standardized testing has no ability to help students.   
      
   I just think kids from wealthier families have a better chance of avoiding   
   certain aspects of education that are harmful. I don't believe that   
   poor kids can't be educated to the best of their ability, despite   
   that many of them have serious family problems. School can't overcome   
   the latter, but better schools should help.   
      
   >(The percentage of students in a particular school failing the state   
   >standardized exams tracks almost perfectly the percentage of students   
   >who are eligible for the federal free lunch program.  It's all just an   
   >elaborate system to measure parents' income, not students' or schools'   
   >performance.)   
      
   I guess.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)