Replies

Accountablity requires that some remedy for poor educational performance be found. We can argue about degrees of success and what remedy makes the best sense. Taking the kids out of a poor performing school seems to me to be valid in two ways. First, the poor performing school ends up with fewer students, hence less pupils to educate and smaller class size. Second, the faculty is put on record because money flows to schools in proportion to the number of students. If the school is capable of reallocation of resources then they may pull out of the poor performing group. If not, then they don't deserve to be saved.

Your comments are perfectly correct and logical. That is why they are resisted by the liberals. Their purpose in maintaining the status quo is to NOT educate and to increase the number of teachers through smaller class size and to build as many new schools as possible and renovate the rest. Who benefits the most from this? Labor unions!! Yet, it sounds as if the students would be the beneficiaries and that is the way it sounded when the present situation was building over the past 40 years. Now we have a mess in education that was built on supposedly "good intentions".

In truth, IMHO, that was just a smoke screen. The leftist Democrats get large sums of money from the teachers' union and other unions so they push programs with high-sounding titles that generate lots of money for their buds.

Again your ideas are sound and I think that the Bush administration will turn around the situation I described to be in harmony with what you suggest.

Accountablity requires that some remedy for poor educational performance be found. We can argue about degrees of success and what remedy makes the best sense. Taking the kids out of a poor performing school seems to me to be valid in two ways.

And what happens to the students in the *receiving* schools, especially when the root causes of the transfer students' problems - drug using parents, illegitimacy, gang affiliations, etc. - are not addressed?