Replies

Democrats and other supporters of higher spending said the comparison is useless because in most high scoring states, the SAT is only taken by the very best students. They said the states that spend the most tend to be the urban northeast states, which must work with diverse populations, students who speak English as a second language, and students from low income homes.

Excuses, nothing but effing excuses for their collossal failures. The liberal education establishment has a leather jack boot on the necks of of those in public "skools"; which are namely minority. There is tons of data which show that spending does not lead to better education, but rather simple values such as discipline, community, curriculum, and family involvement lead to better education.

"'Democrats and other supporters of higher spending said the comparison is useless because in most high scoring states, the SAT is only taken by the very best students. They said the states that spend the most tend to be the urban northeast states, which must work with diverse populations, students who speak English as a second language, and students from low income homes.'

Excuses, nothing but effing excuses for their collossal failures. The liberal education establishment has a leather jack boot on the necks of of those in public "skools"; which are namely minority. There is tons of data which show that spending does not lead to better education, but rather simple values such as discipline, community, curriculum, and family involvement lead to better education."

There is another much better response to the assertion that the higher score states are helped by an advantage in the quality of students who take the tests--like a number of the things the liberals say, there is no data to support the assertion--from anecdotal evidence available here, I have reached the conclusion that it is simply not so.

Further, again from observation of the facts here in the small southern town in which we live, a number of the students that did not do well in elementary school down here have been helped by higher standards and increased discipline at the high school level; the NA and lower income group students are studying harder and are doing better in school and thus can be expected to do better on the exam.

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN

Democrats and other supporters of higher spending said the comparison is useless because in most high scoring states, the SAT is only taken by the very best students. They said the states that spend the most tend to be the urban northeast states, which must work with diverse populations, students who speak English as a second language, and students from low income homes...

I know that virtually everyone on FR has hear this from me before, but I'll rehash it one more time for those of you who need ammo in this argument. My wife and I live in a small town in Westchester NY. There are a total of 1500 students in the school system in a middle, and upper middle class town. Minorities make up approximately 5% of the total student body.

Last year we paid $18,600 per student, and this year will were hit with a 9% increase. That makes the new budget $20,300 per student.

For this princely sum, only 67% of the 8th graders are passing the state required standardized tests, and the average SAT score is below 1000. That means that we are the single most expensive, failing public school in the United States. The next time someone asks you how bad the schools will get before the NEA is chucked out, tell them these statistics, and remind them that we have no recourse. Short of burning the school to the ground, there is nothing we taxpayers can do to reign in an administration drunk with funding.

We can vote down the budgets (and have every year for the last 4) but they enact them anyway. We can lobby the school board, but 1 member is a teacher, and two of the others have their wives working in the administrators office so they are bought and paid for, and would never consider lowering a budget, or turning down a request for more funding. We can vote out the school board, but since they rotate their terms, it would take 4 years to affect any change, and my wife and I can't affort to stay while the issue is debated.

We're told that we can expect double digit increases for a minimum of the next 4 years. This year we will vote with our feet, just like 15% of our town is doing right now.