Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul
Thanks melliedee, I hadn't seen that quote before. The question asked last night did have a one word answer. It was a yes or no question. The quote you provided does clear it up.
The poor performances of some schools cannot blamed on a lack of resources. Some of the worst school districts in the country are those that spend the most money. Obama referred to the schools in SC, last night. I believe those school districts come up short because SC isn't exactly a rich state. I would not oppose more money for the poorer states, but I would expect results. As I mentioned before, Washington DC has the highest per student spending in the country. It sits near the bottom in terms of student levels.
|
I don't think it's a matter of poorer states, but poorer districts. The population of inner city schools is increasingly segregated. Couple that with lower property taxes and you have school districts with fewer tax dollars struggling to survive even as thier suburban counterparts flourish. The problem with No Child Left Behind is not "throwing money at the problem," as I've heard you say about education on more than one occasion, it is that the allocation of funds falls to beurocrats and consultants instead of educators.
Can't speak for DC, but in OH when I see an ACT score composite in the single digits and an extremely low high school GPA, the common denominator is zip code. That is neither a coincidence nor a reflection of students' ablilities.
What Barack gave was a detailed answer to a yes or no question that does not have (at least for the thoughtful candidate) a yes or no answer. I'd happy rob the coffers of the war chest to improve education. It remains the one deal breaker issue for me and I'd even cross party lines for the candidate who has a better solution than NCLB.
Methinks we've had this conversation before?
