Let's say I have a child in public school.
Let's say that my child brings home copies of pages to read from a book every night. Let's also say that the teacher makes those copies instead of sending home a book with each child because the school "doesn't have enough money to buy books for every child in the class."
Why should a parent of that child in the school care about the following quote from Walter Williams?
"if money were the answer, Washington public schools would be the best in the nation -- if not the world. Per student expenditures are $10,500 a year, second highest in the nation. With a student-teacher ration of 15.8, they have smaller-than-average class sizes. What is the result? In only one of the city's 19 high schools do as many as 50 percent of its students test as proficient in reading, and at no school are 50 percent of the students proficient in math. At nine high schools, only 5 percent or fewer of its students test proficient in reading; and in 11 high schools, only 5 percent or less are proficient in math."
If the parent is not in D.C., is it most likely that the parent will only care his child doesn't have a book because the school lacks money?
Les, you are right. In fact, when Armstrong Williams made the same comment that Walter Williams made, I brought up the same points that you did. It shut him up.
I don't care where Walter Williams or Armstrong Williams get their statistics, but I would love to know where they get their drugs - 'cause they are higher than a kite.
There are districts in New York State that spend as much as $21,000 PER STUDENT, PER YEAR. In addition, most of New York City's top schools are in two districts where parents can afford to supplement the average PPE (per pupil expenditure) through school improvement funds that pay for teacher salaries, in school technology, field trips, etc. This does not include the ability of many wealthy parents to leverage corporate relationships in service to schools - mentoring programs, internships, in-kind contributions, donations of cash and services, etc.
This is more of what I was discussing before...conservatives will have a tough time gaining traction with conjured arguments that they CANNOT apply to their sponsors. If $$ doesn't matter, Armstrong should be able to get his sponsors to eschew some of their loot and kick it down to Anacostia and the like.
Posted by: Temple3 at June 18, 2005 06:46 AMI send my kids to Kumon and Score, oh yeah and public school.
http://www.escore.com/
http://www.kumon.com/
Posted by: Cobb at June 18, 2005 10:53 PMIdeally, I would see no reason to send kids to such programs that Cobb points out. When the real world kicks in, it makes sense.
Sigh
Posted by: DarkStar at June 19, 2005 12:00 PMThe DCPS has complained about the lack of funding for maintenance costs. In fact, there was legislation in the works to add money for it.
Williams fails to point out what the 15.8 child/teacher ratio implies. The ratio is low because a) the number of students attending DCPS has fallen since the 1980s b) inept or corrupt adminstration (no-bid contracts, special education lawsuit and its costs) c) large number of schools that should be closed down and d) because of c), greater adminstation costs (principals, security, cafeteria workers, etc.).
The City Council and school board have mentioned school closings and concerned parents begin attending school board meetings, council meetings and letter-writing campaigns.
Posted by: elg at June 19, 2005 06:14 PM
The problem with Williams' formulation is that he does not take school infrastructure into account. The average urban school is more than 30-40 years old...and requires SIGNIFICANT upkeep. Which of course requires loot.
How much of that per child spending actually goes to the education of the child rather than to upkeep? Compare THAT number to the number spent in other schools and you're cooking with gas.
Posted by: Lester Spence at June 17, 2005 11:14 PM