RAS Intradistrict Transfers
That is simply a good thing. The more students that have a chance to succeed and escape the horrors of poverty, the better. Don't we want this in the end? Is it always just about us and our own families? We are the richest nation on earth and we can't find the money to help out needy kids. If Pawlenty would let loose of his tight educational reign, we could actually help all kids. Just think of this example. I always keep a few extra dollars in my wallet so when I travel and see someone on the subway asking for money I can just give it to them. I don't attach any strings to it. I don't think, what if that guy buys a bottle of booze with it. Why should I put a judgement on it? Same with educational opportunities. Isn't it our duty as a society to open our arms to those less fortunate and give them every chance to succeed? I hope we want to help others even if the results aren't perfect or we have to give up something to help out. Imagine, instead of saving up all of this fundraising money to buy smart boards (RSI) we actually put that money to help those who could really use it? Makes you think , huh? I believe our district is strong enough that we could provide opportunity for everyone, not just those more fortunate to have great families, good jobs, etc.
I'll start it out with a few questions:
- Since the money Pawlenty is trying to not to spend is actually yours, mine & ours. Who do you want to pay more taxes? Or what else should be cut from the budget?
- Can we stop poverty by giving people money? Or do we actually make it worse by making them more dependent and robbing them of their self esteem?
- What is the advantage of putting more money into education if it just goes to wage increases? Even if most people's wages are decreasing in other fields.... We are actually going to reduce the number of teacher's due to those compensation increases. (ie bigger class sizes)
I understand and appreciate your empathetic and caring viewpoint. I just think we spend enough, and we need to find a different and better solution. Nobody will fix things if we keep pouring money into the system.
Thoughts ?
5 comments:
I wasn't the original poster, but I'll bite. Very few problems can be solved by cutting funds. At its simplest, most things need time or money--unless you forsee a huge infusion of volunteer hours, it's going to require a commitment of funds to fix.
To answer your (fairly loaded) questions:
1) More taxes? Yes. I will pay them. I have no particular fondness for not keeping my own funds, but I recognize that to live in a community/nation with the amenities I value (education, services, parks) requires taxes. Cut far enough and things suffer. Can all people afford to pay more taxes? I can't speak for everyone, but an extra % isn't going to make or break my household, and I doubt it will for most people in my middle class tax bracket.
2) "Giving people money" doesn't always mean giving people money. Sometimes it means a parenting class, or a home health aid, or career guidance or a tutor. I doubt any of them will rob folks of their self esteem.
3) Who said that more money for education means it all goes into salaries? Race to the Top seems to be not doing that.
At the end of the day, I'm all for spending more money, more wisely--focus on best practices, measurable results, and strong leaders. And understand that those things will cost incrementally more now, but will pay exponentially more in the long run.
--Annie
At church, you can often designate how you want your giving directed - local operations, missions, education, a building fund, etc.
What if the District gave student $100 that the student's parents can direct, $50 each for husband and wife. You could designate a specific school, including language immersion. You could designate a program, like lab equipment for AP courses. Or maybe something as arcane as repaving the parking lot whose potholes are taking a toll on your car.
The administration of this could and should be done almost totally by volunteers who are isolated from knowing actual names. Defaulted "vouchers" go to the general fund, no proxies. And make it so parents who participate pay the $1 or $2 of administrative costs, like postage.
And these funds are awarded AFTER the budget is set, lest the budget wind up to be what the District wanted in the first place.
Beyond the more focused spending, we might learn more about what the parents are thinking.
Look at all the money that flowed in Haiti. And based on what I have heard many conservative commentators state, we are all tapped out. Looks like that might not be the case. Looks like we can find the giving spirit if required. Don't you think our future and our children are worth investing in? Aren't teachers worth the money? All it takes is getting priorities straight. Educations versus financial bailout for example. As a country our prioroity is to facilitate the educational environment to empower parents, teachers, administration and students. We are the wealthiest nation on earth and cutting educational funding is the best we can come up with? Can someone tell me waht percentage of our income goes to schools now as compared to 50 years ago. My guess is that generation gave much more.
We know that school spending per pupil has more than doubled, over and above inflation, in the last couple of decades. In my district, we have doubled the local levy in just the last few years. Neither of these "money dumps" has brought us much of an uptick, if any, in academic results. The ONLY result of spending more money on our public schools is that we spend more money on public schools, and to me that is not a worthwhile or particularly satisfying thing to do.
To the original poster, my challenge would be this: Prove to me that every single dollar the district spends is absolutely essential to the education and preparation of students to be productive members of our free society, and that giving them more would improve those results, and I'm there. I don't believe I'll owe a penny.
J. Ewing
A timely article.
CNN Boycott Beck
Post a Comment