NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/tx/politics/7521

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 4.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!tcsi.com!iat.holonet.net!news.dell.com!natinst.com!cs.utexas.edu!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: 19 Nov 92 14:44:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Lines: 76

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

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>     Doug Andersen says:
>> >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.
>
>It is true.  The sociology of the school and the surrounding community has
>a hell of a lot to do with the results.  Once you get past a certain point
>in school funding you start getting frills that might make life nicer, but
>have very little to do with the results.  Things like football stadiums,
>new band rooms, overhead machines, movie projectors.

So let the rich kids do without some of their frills so that the poor
kids can get stuff to improve their learning envirnoment.  By the way,
the preceding make a great case AGAINST school choice, since it
basically says that choice can't help the poor anyway, because they
will fail no matter what you do.  I don't buy that, but it sure seems
to be implicit in Doug's argument.  Yes, the "sociology of the school
and the surrounding community" matters.  So let's move some money and
improve the "sociology of the school".

>
>> '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?
>
>First of all, no one has shown that we can't achieve a decent public
>education with the money we have right now.  There are more than a few
>studies that show that once you get past a certain threshold of funding
>you get very little bang for your buck (marginal education so to speak).
>Isn't it possible that there are other problems, like the structure of
>our public schools, that could actually make a difference.

Then let's make everyone 'overfunded' equally (if your contention is
that the amount that the poor schools have is adequate) and then they
can all cut 'fat and frills' together to become more efficient.  Of
course, you assume (for the sake of your argument) that what the poor
schools have IS enough -- which seems to leave at least some folks
wondering just why it is that those rich schools feel like they would
be hurt so badly by a reduction in their current funding to a level
where they still have significantly more than those poor schools do
now.

>
>You can achieve total equality of school funding if you really want, but
>you will give up almost all semblance of local control, and you'll just
>increase the flight out of the public schools.

Sorry, but I don't see how equalizing funding based on the standard
mil levy takes away local control.  A district is ALWAYS allowed to
increase their local mil levy if they want to spend more.  And
frankly, if the rich white breads want to 'flee' the public school
simply because some poor kid is being given an equal chance, then good
riddance to them.  They'll still be paying the taxes (unless they get
some sort of racist school choice law through), so why is their
'flight' a problem?

--
"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.