Obama's stimulus plan working in Detroit

[RobJohnson]

The liberal ideology is always throw more money at problems.  Some of the worst schools have way higher than average funding already.

I agree.

[atruevoice]

That is entirely untrue, for example, I live in the Philadelphia/NYC suburbs, the school district I live in spends about 16K per year per student, philadelphia spends about half that so no thats not true try to back this up with some hard evidence.

[Eupher]

That is entirely untrue, for example, I live in the Philadelphia/NYC suburbs, the school district I live in spends about 16K per year per student, philadelphia spends about half that so no thats not true try to back this up with some hard evidence.

Let's start our little journey with this information. I'll summarize in case you're not inclined to actually go to the link - our dismal performance in American schools is partly attributed to the socialist, progressive political system back at the turn of the last century. The model is monolithic, non-competitive, and a complete and utter failure. Even the former USSR has abandoned this education model.

I have to admit, the writer of the article wrings his hands and laments about inner city school systems. I'd submit that the largest reason for inner city education failure is not just due to the monolithic education model, but also to the collapse of the family unit. When Momma is a crack ho and Daddy's in jail again, trying to learn in a system that compels survival rather than creating an environment conducive to learning is tough for a kid.

Cato Institute

The next article is admittedly from a conservative web site, but the gist of the article and the data the writer quotes should be noteworthy. Bottom line is, despite our rather massive expenditures toward education, our children's performance truly sucks. The conclusion to that shouldn't be startling - throwing money at a problem (poor performance, despite "education") does not fix the problem. This, of course, runs contrary to the "progressive" meme which is to throw money at a problem.

There's plenty of anecdotal data out there that tells the story of how success is had despite poor conditions, little money, and hopelessness. Good leadership and sticking to basics, along with using some creativity, seems to help quite a bit.

For that kind of information, I suggest you do your own digging. Just recently in the news, a school board superintendent in the Bay Area was lauded for making a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Human Events.com

[thundley4]

That is entirely untrue, for example, I live in the Philadelphia/NYC suburbs, the school district I live in spends about 16K per year per student, philadelphia spends about half that so no thats not true try to back this up with some hard evidence.

DC has one of the nations highest Dollars/Student ratios, and is one of the worst districts in the nation. Look at almost any small county schools in the midwest, or anywhere not on the left coasts, for that matter.  You'll find higher graduation rates and a lot less money spent per student.

[dutch508]

You know BEG if that is a picture of you I just wanted to let you know that although I do not agree with you politically I think you are a very pretty lady, in fact you look a lot like an old neighbor of mine, you should consider a carrer in sales or something you have a very trust worthy face.

Stop hitting on BEG.


We've all tried....

[NHSparky]

The Reagan thing was obviously a joke, however Dems are in control of most large cities, but they get punished by the FED which is usually run by Republicans. Just consider NCLB, inner city schools loose funding if their test scores don't get better, so the schools that have the most disadvantaged students get less funding, its backwards, they should get more.

That had to be the most circular logic I've ever heard, not to mention some of the worst.

For the record:

--Who had been pushing NCLB FOR TWO DECADES before he compromised with Bush?
--Under what president was the Dept. of Education formed?
--More school funding comes from STATE budgets, not federal ones.
--Feds don't tell cities to do jack.  Again, the STATES have a larger impact, and in the case of large cities, the cities themselves have the greatest impact of all.
--Which political party has controlled the Congress; i.e., the purse strings, for most of the last century?
--Administrations come and go, but the BUREAUCRACY is forever.  Given the large percentage of unionization amongst government workers and increased job security which comes with government expansion, which party do you think they'd be more likely to support?

So please, tell me exactly how the federal government "punishes" large cities.

[atruevoice]

By lowering funding for failing to increase scores as they are told to do by federal standards.

[docstew]

By lowering funding for failing to increase scores as they are told to do by federal standards.

This is yet another conservative principle:  You don't reward failure (i.e. increasing funding) and you hold people accountable for results, not intentions.

[jtyangel]

Not even an accurate depiction of progressives, we do not loathe in self pity, we  pity those who don't know any better. Our goal is to make socitey PROGRESS, hence PROGRESSive. We are not all knowing nor do we claim to be, I thought that was the job of the republicans.

j

"loathe in self-pity"? 

Progression is not good and of itself little one. A drug user progresses to a drug addict. A casual drinker PROGRESSES to an alcoholic. Platonic friendships PROGRESS to affairs. Just because one is progressing does not mean their progression is desired or positive. Sounds like someone here has got sucked in by a word that sounds good when it doesn't necessarily mean well...kinda like 'change'.

Out of curiousity, where do you want society to PROGRESS to, pray tell? How many freedoms and people do you think you might have to step over and on to obtain your version of a new society? It's an honest question and one I don't think many progressives consider enough. Progressive usually ends up regressive and oppressive to somebody. 

[jtyangel]

docstew:
Doc, I'd suggest that self-interest is not merely a good thing, it is a fact of human nature. Despite the warm 'n fuzzy, Kumbayah-chanting, free love approach of most liberals, we are hard-wired to look after our own interests first.

Individuals do it. Organizations do it. Entire countries do it.

Progressives (or liberals, as I continue to refer to them) utterly fail to acknowledge this fact, therefore their approach to expanding the influence and power of government is to attempt to convince us that no, exhibiting self-interest is contrary to the expressed wishes of their socialist leaders. It is our role in life to subjugate ourselves to government for the good of all.

It just doesn't work that way, liberals. 

I've found that liberals also like to deny the fact that 'poor' are self-interested as well, and not always in a positive way. Liberals have raised 'poor' people up like some kind of folk heros and embodied them with noble qualities, when many of those 'poor' have no problem cheating, swindling, and committing fraud to further their own 'self-interests' via government programs. Liberals generally seem to have a problem with self-interest that creates wealth for oneself in legitimate business practices and profit, yet take no issue with self-interest that steals and pillages the pockets of the above.

[RobJohnson]

By lowering funding for failing to increase scores as they are told to do by federal standards.

Obama's education stimulus is tied to scores & performance, in fact many states are rushing to change laws that were set up by teacher unions years ago.

[jtyangel]

The Reagan thing was obviously a joke, however Dems are in control of most large cities, but they get punished by the FED which is usually run by Republicans. Just consider NCLB, inner city schools loose funding if their test scores don't get better, so the schools that have the most disadvantaged students get less funding, its backwards, they should get more.

More money to accomplish what exactly? How will money solve the inadequacies in inner cities that are largely SELF created? How is an inner city child less able to learn then a child in the suburb educated for less? Think real careful now. DC is one of the higher funded and has the bottom lowest results. Why?

How can a home-school family spend 500.00 a year on one child and develop a superior result?

I'm sure the missing link will come to you and what that means, sadly, is there is only so much a community can do. Short of taking kids away from inadequate homes(which I don't advocate since it stomps on freedom and inadequacy is not criminal, even if it is unwise), how will you improve most children who are deficient? At some point people will have to accept that not all homes and families are created equal, nor do all children have the same aptitudes and strengths as others. Because of this there will always be children that don't do well in school or who are not meant for college, at least not on a traditional time table because they have to learn self-discipline and the value of hard work AFTER they leave their parents'(assuming there are 2) home.

[jtyangel]

That is entirely untrue, for example, I live in the Philadelphia/NYC suburbs, the school district I live in spends about 16K per year per student, philadelphia spends about half that so no thats not true try to back this up with some hard evidence.

And the school districts my children are in spend half that and are rated excellent every year. Here is but one documentation of what you asked:

http://simplecomplexity.net/education-achievement-data/
 

BTW, the spending is highest in DC per pupil yet they have the lowest test scores. This is well-documented and being that you are smarter then all the conservatives here, I'm sure you will do a quicker job of looking it up.  BTW, why don't YOU look for evidence? Doesn't it make you at least a little curious as to why, DC for example, is doing so poorly although they have so much money thrown at them? I wonder how much money via entitlements we throw at the 'family' home there too for turnout of an inferior product? I bet it exceeds school spending.

[NHSparky]

By lowering funding for failing to increase scores as they are told to do by federal standards.

Again, if I lowered or, more accurately, didn't increase the amount the liberals wanted "fer the chilluns!" by the amount they wanted, does that necessarily translate into worse scores?

The evidence would seem to suggest no.

LINK

More spending doesn't equal more learning

California public schools and teachers cry for more money, but new analysis reveals no link between higher learning and higher spending

By VICKI E. MURRAY
Education policy expert with Pacific Research Institute in Sacramento

(excerpt)

Jack O'Connell, California's superintendent of public instruction, recently claimed that Education Week's latest Quality Counts report "ranks us a dismal 47th in the country" for school funding. That ranking needs some clarification, but the revenue that school districts actually receive would better inform the education policy debate.

About half of California's regular school districts, 469 in all, already exceed Education Week's national average of $9,963 per student. In fact, those regular unified, elementary, and high-school districts receive an average $12,800 in state and local funding per student. That average jumps to nearly $14,000 per student when federal funding is included. Yet, Superintendent O'Connell recommends more money.

"What I am asking for is greater investment at a time when the state is virtually broke," he explained. "We must expect a different commitment from the citizens of California," he said. Otherwise, "We will never be the great state our citizens deserve unless we invest in our future."

Evidence from his own department, however, indicates that pouring more money into the current public school system is unlikely to have a discernable impact on overall student performance.

About half the students at the 469 above-average-funded regular school districts do not score proficient on the California Standards Test in math or English language arts, even though total per-student funding in some cases approaches or exceeds $20,000, even $30,000. Forget the national average, those amounts beat the U.S. Census Bureau's grade-A funders hands down – even after adjusting their per-student funding to reflect California's cost of living. These big spenders include Washington, D.C., which receives $18,700 per student, and New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, where per-student funding ranges from $16,600 to $18,600.

And then you have LINK

Notice who's at the top of the scale, and who's at the bottom in terms of spending.  Now compare those same districts to their respective test scores, graduation rates, and college attendance....


Top 10 Large Districts
1. 89.6% Graduation Rate Cypress-Fairbanks, TX
2. 82.6% Graduation Rate Jordan, Utah
3. 81.7% Graduation Rate Montgomery County, MD
4. 80.3% Graduation Rate Baltimore County, MD
5. 79.9% Graduation Rate Fairfax County, VA
6. 77.1% Graduation Rate Wake County, VA
7. 76.6% Graduation Rate Mesa, AZ
8. 75.5% Graduation Rate Jefferson County, GA
9. 75.0% Graduation Rate Anne Arundel County, MD
10. 73.1% Graduation Rate Guilford County, NC
Worst 10 Large Districts
1. 37.5% Graduation Rate: Detroit

2. 31.0% Graduation Rate: Milwaukee

3. 41.5% Graduation Rate: Baltimore

4. 44.4% Graduation Rate: Los Angeles

5. 44.5% Graduation Rate: Clark County, NV

6. 45.2% Graduation Rate: Nashville-Davidson Coutnty, TN

7. 49.0% Graduation Rate: Albugquerque, NM

8. 50.5% Graduation Rate: New York City

9. 50.8% Graduation Rate: Duval County School, FL

10. 50.8% Graduation Rate: Dallas, TX

Source: Diplomas Count 2008, Education Week

[jtyangel]

I spent my formative years in Anne Arundel schools before I went down to the inadequacy that is Florida schools. They really do a superb job. Well, they did in the 70's anyway. Good to see they are still rolling along! Although, I would guess as a Maryland school they are a lot more liberal then when I went to them back in the day.

Of course, and once again, home life has so much to do with it. School and academics were very important in my home: VERY IMPORTANT. We were expected to do well and it makes a difference. My own children are a bit lazy, but they all know they are expected to do well. Despite my daughter being a pita sometimes, she pulls through an A/high B average. My littlest one just started and is a 'young 5' and he got high praises although he's a little behind given his age and I was told he puts 100% effort in and tries hard. Home life and expectations on behavior and academics from parents can not be dismissed. It matters and no amount of throwing money at it is going to repair broken work ethics or attitudes that stem from not giving a damn unless something goes wrong.