NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/tx/politics/7355

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 4.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!sgigate!rutgers!sun-barr!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!moxie!ernest!m2.dseg.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: TEXAS SCHOOL FINANCE: GRAPPLING WITH FAIR SHARE PLAN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:31:04 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Lines: 83

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> seen runs like this.  First they will tell you that it's not
>> necessary, because money doesn't adversely affect the quality of the
>> education received by those who have the misfortune to live in the
>> poor districts.  Given that premise, they then go on to assert that
>
>Money does matter, but if managed correctly you can still have a good
>school district.  It's just tougher.

Yeah, but this is the PROBLEM.  With all else being equal, the guy
with the most money is going to have the best schools.  Hence, by
locking in a situation where those that already 'got' wind up with
(more likely than not) the best schools, you essentially create a
permanent class society.  This is great if that's what you want, but
not so great if the idea is to provide people with equal access to the
education they need to succeed later in life.

[And no, I'm not naive enough to believe that we can make things
absolutely equal -- which is not a reason not to do what we can.]

>The problem is that people look at
>wealthy school districts and note how good the schools are.  The problem
>with that analysis is that it ignores the fact that wealthy school
>districts are also filled with kids whose parents are educated and who
>make sure that kids attend school and do their homework.  There is also
>some peer pressure at work as the expectation (from both parents and the
>other students) is that most kids will go to college.  That's a byproduct
>of the wealth, but it can't be transfered simply by giving more money to
>the school district.

It's also not true.  So it's your position that we should give up on
trying to help anyone, since it will be a futile effort?  Sorry, but
some of those kids want to learn MORE than those nice, white bread,
suburban dweebs who have had everything handed to them all their
lives.

>
>> Now, the question.  *IF*, as they say, the poor districts get the same
>> quality of education as the wealthy ones and money is irrelevant, WHY
>> WOULD THEY HAVE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE?  They will then get
>> belligerent, of course, because they don't have a good answer that
>> doesn't invalidate at least one of their premises.
>
>I've never heard anyone assert that the quality of education is the same
>in poor and wealthy school districts.

Well, then you haven't been in the discussions that I have (and that's
not quite what I said).  Take a look at the whole argument.

>I have heard people assert that
>they have the right to keep their school funding local, and that if people
>are willing to pay more taxes, they should be able to have the kind of
>schools they want.

But why should those who are already economically disadvantaged be
required to run an order of magnituted harder than those with the good
fortune to have selected parents who are well off in order to have
even close to an equal chance to succeed?

>
>> So, I'm curious.  For people who oppose such a plan, just how do they
>> propose to give the same educational opportunities to the student in a
>> poor district as are available to one in a wealthy district?  Note
>> that moving to the wealthy district is generally not an available
>> option.
>
>Poor schools districts will have to work harder.  They'll have to cut down
>on frills (all schools have frills) and work smarter.  From the recent
>audit of schools it appears we have a lot of frills to cut.  You have a
>school district in South Texas whose administrative costs are 123% of
>teaching costs.

'Fat' and 'frills' are irrelevant to the question.  Why, Doug, should
someone have drastically reduced chances to get a decent education
just because they didn't happen to be born to a nice suburban family?

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.