Everyday for 15 years.

Quit beating around the bush and shooting down ideas for inner city schools and tell us what the school you teach at needs. You are the expert here, tell us what you need.

It's all one in the same. KY opted in as one of the first states to adopt EOC. Norm referenced testing, aligned with Common Core. It's all related.

 

As for schools I'm SEKY, of course they struggle nationally or even statewide. Lower tax base, lower teacher pay, fewer resources than most places nationally. I doubt the teachers in those schools want their kids to fail. As a matter of fact, I'd guarantee they want them to succeed.

 

Equality is not possible. Holding a small rural school to the same accountability as a suburban school is pointless and unfair. State departments come in and flush Millions of dollars into the district and suddenly test scores go up. It's not the teaching, it's the resources. An extremely motivated district can overcome some of these disadvantages, but long term, you're going to get a better education in an area with more money. More access and you're going to attract the best teachers because of the pay.

 

That's what kills me about nationalized and even statewide education. It doesnt promote equality, it highlights the inequality of America or our state. Maybe that is the true goal of state and nationalized education?

 

There's no real solution. Sure you could take money from the richer districts, but how fair is that? Shouldn't the kids of successful parents benefit?

There is little or no correlation between per pupil expenditures on education and results. If you doubt that is true, and I do not blame you for being skeptical, graph ACT and SAT scores of a rural state like Utah against expenditures and then add data for students in the District of Columbia, Chicago, and other districts that head the list of per pupil educational spending. Repeat the exercise, but this time plot average teacher salaries against student outcomes.

 

There is no better example of where increasing spending on failed programs has failed than federal spending on education. Money solves many problems, but it is not the answer to all of them. Spend more money locally and schools will improve. Send more money to Washington for the federal government to spend and things often get worse at the local level.

 

However, all of the money that pours into Washington, DC, finds its way into the local economy in neighborhoods like mine. The local economy here is booming and local spending here on education is very high - thanks to the large contributions from people across this nation. The median income here in Fairfax County, Virginia, is $113,313 and our public schools are among the best in the nation.

To be honest I don't know much about her. I've done no research to garner an opinion for or against. I've just seen snipits of her not cooperating with the game Warren and Kaine are trying to play. Thought it was funny but of no real substance. I will side with anyone who wants to pull the federal tenticles out of our childrens daily lives. I believe Government creates more problems than it solves. So less is best. About DeVoss?

 

So you are cool with not enforcing IDEA?

It's all one in the same. KY opted in as one of the first states to adopt EOC. Norm referenced testing, aligned with Common Core. It's all related.

 

KY was one of the first. We wanted anything but NCLB.

 

As for schools I'm SEKY, of course they struggle nationally or even statewide. Lower tax base, lower teacher pay, fewer resources than most places nationally. I doubt the teachers in those schools want their kids to fail. As a matter of fact, I'd guarantee they want them to succeed.

 

I guarantee all do.

 

Equality is not possible. Holding a small rural school to the same accountability as a suburban school is pointless and unfair. State departments come in and flush Millions of dollars into the district and suddenly test scores go up. It's not the teaching, it's the resources. An extremely motivated district can overcome some of these disadvantages, but long term, you're going to get a better education in an area with more money. More access and you're going to attract the best teachers because of the pay.

 

The state never comes in and flushes millions of dollars. You get tons of PD and zero extra resources just teachers and administrators held to the fire.

 

That's what kills me about nationalized and even statewide education. It doesnt promote equality, it highlights the inequality of America or our state. Maybe that is the true goal of state and nationalized education?

 

You prefer to live oblivious?

 

There's no real solution. Sure you could take money from the richer districts, but how fair is that? Shouldn't the kids of successful parents benefit?

 

The rich get richer.

There is little or no correlation between per pupil expenditures on education and results. If you doubt that is true, and I do not blame you for being skeptical, graph ACT and SAT scores of a rural state like Utah against expenditures and then add data for students in the District of Columbia, Chicago, and other districts that head the list of per pupil educational spending. Repeat the exercise, but this time plot average teacher salaries against student outcomes.

 

There is no better example of where increasing spending on failed programs has failed than federal spending on education. Money solves many problems, but it is not the answer to all of them. Spend more money locally and schools will improve. Send more money to Washington for the federal government to spend and things often get worse at the local level.

 

However, all of the money that pours into Washington, DC, finds its way into the local economy in neighborhoods like mine. The local economy here is booming and local spending here on education is very high - thanks to the large contributions from people across this nation. The median income here in Fairfax County, Virginia, is $113,313 and our public schools are among the best in the nation.

 

Rural vs city is not where you see the differences IMO. It's poor rural and inner city vs. suburban. Per pupil spending isn't equal based on cost of living, and a salary is only good based on where it is. On paper a teacher in Chicago makes much more than a teacher in Ashland but do the live better on it?

 

Why do our rural communities and inner city public score low? Why are most of the consistently low performing schools in these areas? It's common sense.

 

I'm not advocating change just saying it's unrealistic to standardize a test to be the main evaluation of a school. Too many other factors.

The rich get richer.

 

You absolutely do get money. Have you taught in one of these schools or had one close by? It comes as a grant but you get it.

As for being oblivious, I live in a small, poor community. I see it. I've worked in a wealthy community as well. I've seen both side of the coin.

Quit beating around the bush and shooting down ideas for inner city schools and tell us what the school you teach at needs. You are the expert here, tell us what you need.

 

1. An education secretary that is familiar with the most basic public education issues.

After that...

 

All schools need better teachers and administrators to start with...Teaching is a profession that should encourage our best and brightest to apply, and sadly that isn't happening, in fact it's quickly going the other way. Find ways to get that kid with a 30 on her ACT to go into teaching and not into business, law, or med school.

You absolutely do get money. Have you taught in one of these schools or had one close by? It comes as a grant but you get it.

 

When the Feds get out the grants go...hence the rich get richer.

 

As for being oblivious, I live in a small, poor community. I see it. I've worked in a wealthy community as well. I've seen both side of the coin.

 

If you don't have norm referenced test you will never know where you stand in the nation therefore oblivious.

Rural vs city is not where you see the differences IMO. It's poor rural and inner city vs. suburban. Per pupil spending isn't equal based on cost of living, and a salary is only good based on where it is. On paper a teacher in Chicago makes much more than a teacher in Ashland but do the live better on it?

 

Why do our rural communities and inner city public score low? Why are most of the consistently low performing schools in these areas? It's common sense.

 

I'm not advocating change just saying it's unrealistic to standardize a test to be the main evaluation of a school. Too many other factors.

Utah schools are not well funded by any measure and the average class sizes are well above the national average. Standardized tests like the ACT may not be perfect measures of teaching success, but scores are objective and there is a strong correlation between high test scores and readiness for college course work.

 

The achievement level and expectations of parents is a factor that, IMO, has a larger influence on student achievement than teacher pay levels and class size do. Children of successful parents will always have a greater chance of academic success than poor children from broken homes will. The culture of dependency that dominates many schools in this country cannot be overcome through increased school funding.

When the Feds get out the grants go...hence the rich get richer.

The money for those grants comes from somewhere - either from taxpayers across the country or from those who buy U.S. treasury instruments. There is no free lunch.

 

If you don't have norm referenced test you will never know where you stand in the nation therefore oblivious.

Where a school stands in the nation is a much greater concern for for politicians than it is for parents. If test results are unsatisfactory, the NEA simply lobbies politicians to change the tests. Everybody likes to hear that they are above average.

The money for those grants comes from somewhere - either from taxpayers across the country or from those who buy U.S. treasury instruments. There is no free lunch.

 

Where a school stands in the nation is a much greater concern for for politicians than it is for parents. If test results are unsatisfactory, the NEA simply lobbies politicians to change the tests. Everybody likes to hear that they are above average.

 

Without federal funding small schools in poverty ridden communities will fail. Students will not be served. Communities will disappear.

 

Parents should be more concerned. Often industry chooses a place to locate based on the quality of the local schools and workforce.

All schools need better teachers and administrators to start with...Teaching is a profession that should encourage our best and brightest to apply, and sadly that isn't happening, in fact it's quickly going the other way. Find ways to get that kid with a 30 on her ACT to go into teaching and not into business, law, or med school.

 

Agreed, but something fundamentally needs to change for that to happen. Either more money for teachers or some sort of college expense reimbursement to lure those students to go into teaching, maybe.

Agreed, but something fundamentally needs to change for that to happen. Either more money for teachers or some sort of college expense reimbursement to lure those students to go into teaching, maybe.

 

JD, there is currently a bill in front of the state legislature that will no longer require teachers to recertify (get an extra 30 hours of education) prior 5 years. Teachers would be able to teach without ever furthering their education past a Bachelors. Most districts pay teachers about 4K for this. Seems we are going in the other direction.

Without federal funding small schools in poverty ridden communities will fail. Students will not be served. Communities will disappear.

 

Parents should be more concerned. Often industry chooses a place to locate based on the quality of the local schools and workforce.

The country is broke and has been for some time. The idea that there is some sort of federal money tree that can turn poor areas into prosperous ones should have been relegated to the ash heap of history long ago.

 

Federal money is state money. Federal money is local money. Federal money is borrowed money. The federal government does not produce any wealth. It transfers money from one place to another, while helping itself to a large cut.