Quote:
Originally posted by KMA-628
Using past performance of the indicators we have used for this analysis: What is the most logical conclusion one can come to if more increases in education funding are made?
In the past 40+ years has the increase in spending ever caused an increase in student performance?
What makes you think that one more increase will change this trend?
What has changed in the past 40+ years that might explain this: 1) Education Unions and 2) Gigantic increase in school bureaucracies.
School administrators are making plenty of money while the teachers don't. Look at investigative articles uncovering lavish spending on useless things by school boards and administrators and you will find tremendous waste. The boards and adminstrators increase their spending activites while the kids lose out.
The facts speak otherwise....I don't feel ridiculous at all.
|
You first attempted to turn my statements into anti-Bush comments. I didn't imply anything like that in my original post and won't go into it now, either.
Your last points serve to support what I was stating. Evidently, we agree that past spending increases have not been spent wisely or for the childrens' benefit, but you felt the need to disagree with me just for the sake of it.
The facts don't support the notion that increases in money will not work. They do seem to indicate that [i]past[i/] increases in spending have not garnered increases in student performance.
I specifically pointed out three things that would increase student performance. Unless you can show that increases in money created a lower teacher-student ratio, provided the students with current textbooks and computers, and ensured the students were adequately nourished, then you haven't even addressed my comment--much less my general statement that increases in funding to specific areas will address the problem.
Also, I made that point that salvaging a system that has worked very nicely for our country for over two centuries is something that I'm interested in doing.