Come join us for The Peoples Day Rally

[PennyQuilts]

Imagine if we had spent that money on our schools instead of breaking things and killing people?

It wouldn't have made a shred of difference on academic achievement other than the bump that would come when people came to see what all the excitement was about.

[Midtowner]

It wouldn't have made a shred of difference on academic achievement other than the bump that would come when people came to see what all the excitement was about.

Ah, so less money for education would result in higher test scores?

[PennyQuilts]

Ah, so less money for education would result in higher test scores?

I worte:

It wouldn't have made a shred of difference on academic achievement other than the bump that would come when people came to see what all the excitement was about.

What is it about my sentence that would translate to less money spent on education would result in greater test scores?

[Midtowner]

I worte:



What is it about my sentence that would translate to less money spent on education would rsult in greater test scores?

If you think more money wouldn't translate into better results, then by that line of reasoning, either you think education funding is perfect (which no one thinks that) or you think that less money would be better.

[PennyQuilts]

If you think more money wouldn't translate into better results, then by that line of reasoning, either you think education funding is perfect (which no one thinks that) or you think that less money would be better.

Mid, no offense but at times like these, I have to wonder how you ever got through law school. That is not a logical conclusion. Think it through. I'll do it for you - I don't see a correlation between money and academic achievement at a certain place beyond the basics.

[Midtowner]

Mid, no offense but at times like these, I have to wonder how you ever got through law school. That is not a logical conclusion. Think it through.

So you're saying that the amount of money schools receive has no bearing on performance?

[PennyQuilts]

So you're saying that the amount of money schools receive has no bearing on performance?

Not beyond a certain point point. I am absolutely saying that. Or maybe I should say that indiscriminate throwing of money, including teacher's salaries not targeted to improve academic achievement. I haven't seen anything that has improved academic achievement beyond parental involvment, structure within the school and high academic expectations. None of which is going to be improved with money.

[mugofbeer]

Not beyond a certain point point. I am absolutely saying that. Or maybe I should say that indiscriminate throwing of money, including teacher's salaries not targeted to improve academic achievement. I haven't seen anything that has improved academic achievement beyond parental involvment, structure within the school and high academic expectations. None of which is going to be improved with money.

PQ, I'm not so sure I buy that. Funding goes beyond just the amount/student that schools get from the states but is also a matter of teacher pay, administrative support and facilities. I fully believe that if students go to an unsafe, grafitti-covered, cold, drab, vandalized facility where underpaid and underperforming teachers are housed, most of the students will not learn and will follow the stereotypical pattern to failure.

Conversely, if students are provided nice, bright, comfortable facilities, with safety, administrative support, enough textbooks, paper, pencils, projection equipment, computer equipment, athletic equipment and decent food, the teachers will perform better and so will the students.

MAPS4KIDS helped with the facilities issue significantly. However, it did not address teacher pay or sufficient supplies. NW Classen still had great shortages of textbooks this past year and still looks completely run down.

[PennyQuilts]

PQ, I'm not so sure I buy that. Funding goes beyond just the amount/student that schools get from the states but is also a matter of teacher pay, administrative support and facilities. I fully believe that if students go to an unsafe, grafitti-covered, cold, drab, vandalized facility where underpaid and underperforming teachers are housed, most of the students will not learn and will follow the stereotypical pattern to failure.

Conversely, if students are provided nice, bright, comfortable facilities, with safety, administrative support, enough textbooks, paper, pencils, projection equipment, computer equipment, athletic equipment and decent food, the teachers will perform better and so will the students.

MAPS4KIDS helped with the facilities issue significantly. However, it did not address teacher pay or sufficient supplies. NW Classen still had great shortages of textbooks this past year and still looks completely run down.

Absent a respect for property and a stake in it, inside of two - three years, that same shiny new building and etc. will be graffiti covered. Without community and family support, all we have are zoos. The teachers that are so underperforming are beaten down by their responsibilities, for the most part. Even an excellent teacher in many of those settings is going to get burnt out when the kids and the parents don't care.

Speaking as a teacher, at the end of the year, I rarely got back the books that were given out to kids who didn't have to put down a deposit that weren't all but destroyed. If I got them back, at all. The ones whose parents had to put a deposit on came back in darn near as nice a shape as they were handed out for the most part.

Decent food? Look, if the parents aren't even feeding the kids, do you really think that the school meals will result in across the board achievement? Sure, it will help some but overall, forget it. A parent who isn't going to feed their kid is not going to help them with their homework or make sure they get proper rest and exercise.

This is the same thing as people blaming the schools for pregancy or abortion rates, depending on their stance. The notion is that "if only" the schools taught thus and such the kids wouldn't do this and that. Look, the parents can do it if they are so inclined. Blame them, not the schools.

To refocus on this:

Conversely, if students are provided nice, bright, comfortable facilities, with safety, administrative support, enough textbooks, paper, pencils, projection equipment, computer equipment, athletic equipment and decent food, the teachers will perform better and so will the students.

Please, please, please show me where these sorts of schools have been turned around by pouring money into them. DC spends more than just about any other school district in the nation and its public schools are war zones with less than a 50% graduation rate.

[Bostonfan]

That wasn't new spending.

So that makes it ok? Seriously, how much does this cost us a year? And is half of the DoD needed? See, that's part of the problem, no one seems to know or ask.

[PennyQuilts]

So that makes it ok? Seriously, how much does this cost us a year? And is half of the DoD needed? See, that's part of the problem, no one seems to know or ask.

I believe there is waste in defense spending. So we at least agree on that. My question, is now, nine years after 911, what should we have done in response? Okay, for the sake of discussion, say we don't go into Iraq. You realize that it was extremely costly to build up the miltary to the point where we could hit Afganistan? We revamped all our security systems. We spent enormous sums rebuilding/revamping our intelligence agencies. It cost a bloody fortune.

Let's say we slash the spending, close down our bases in other states, trim down the military. What happens when we get hit, again? Or are you of the mind that we won't get hit - that our oceans will keep us safe? It costs huge sums to rebuild, not to mention the lag time in getting things in place.

I'm like a lot of people in that I have a hard time seeing us go back to big-time masses of soldiers types of war. However, at this point, we won't even defend our own borders. And we darn sure wouldn't nuke on our own soil. So if anyone ever gets close, we are going to need troops. Not that I think there would be a shortage of volunteers under those circumstances, but there would be expenses and lag time. The notion is that we would do something before enemy troops got here. But would we? What? And if we felt threatened, say from troops coming up from the south, would we be ready? Particularly if we slash our defense budget.

If it were to happen, today, I am not sure we would even fight the Japanese. I think we would revamp our defenses but that might be about it. We darn sure wouldn't fight Hitler. I think we'd just watch from afar and hope we could appease them.

[mugofbeer]

Please, please, please show me where these sorts of schools have been turned around by pouring money into them. DC spends more than just about any other school district in the nation and its public schools are war zones with less than a 50% graduation rate.

My son was in public schools in a Denver suburb and from what I can see, beyond the grade school level, they are far superior to what I see here. Whether or not you get the textbook back is beside the point. Kids need textbooks to properly learn. You didn't get yourself through law school without being able to use your books for studying did you? Yes, I know there was a difference but the point is the same.

Your schools should have proper funding and they haven't in the OKC public school system since I was there some 30 years ago. No, throwing money at the schools isn't the only answer. They have to spend it wisely so I am all for annual audits that would weed out the waste and elimination of administrative overabundance so prevelent in large school districts. However, when it is obvious that both school funding / pupil ranks near the bottom of the barrel and school performance ranks in the bottom 25%, there is likely a correlation.

I would, in no way, compare our schools to those in DC. Those in DC are so politicized and so buffered from public input they are virtually beyond repair without some sort of emergency takeover. In Colorado, the state has come in more than once in the last 5 years and taken over control of school systems whose management has lost control. DC has no such supervision. A Congressional takeover would be criticized as racist and they wouldn't have the backbone to take that one on.

[PennyQuilts]

I would, in no way, compare our schools to those in DC. Those in DC are so politicized and so buffered from public input they are virtually beyond repair without some sort of emergency takeover. In Colorado, the state has come in more than once in the last 5 years and taken over control of school systems whose management has lost control. DC has no such supervision. A Congressional takeover would be criticized as racist and they wouldn't have the backbone to take that one on.

Well, you have a point about congress vs. the state. I still believe the difference is not money but parental involvement and internal control/structure of the school. Private schools tend to do just fine even though their teachers are paid less and they frequently don't have nearly as good facilities or other resources. For that matter, home schooled kids frequently do very well, academically.

[Midtowner]

Not beyond a certain point point. I am absolutely saying that. Or maybe I should say that indiscriminate throwing of money, including teacher's salaries not targeted to improve academic achievement. I haven't seen anything that has improved academic achievement beyond parental involvment, structure within the school and high academic expectations. None of which is going to be improved with money.

Not beyond a certain point? Are we at that "certain point" now? Are students going to learn civics adequately from books talking about the current Clinton presidency?

And who on Earth is advocating "throwing money at the problem"? Is simply funding education at a regional average level (much higher than we're spending now) something you'd consider "throwing money at the problem"?

Our public schools need adequate funding and they're not getting that. Nowhere close. When funding IS the problem, adequate funding is the answer. That's not throwing money at the problem, that's paying the going rate for adequate government services.

[Midtowner]

I believe there is waste in defense spending. So we at least agree on that. My question, is now, nine years after 911, what should we have done in response? Okay, for the sake of discussion, say we don't go into Iraq. You realize that it was extremely costly to build up the miltary to the point where we could hit Afganistan? We revamped all our security systems. We spent enormous sums rebuilding/revamping our intelligence agencies. It cost a bloody fortune.

Let's say we slash the spending, close down our bases in other states, trim down the military. What happens when we get hit, again? Or are you of the mind that we won't get hit - that our oceans will keep us safe? It costs huge sums to rebuild, not to mention the lag time in getting things in place.

I'm like a lot of people in that I have a hard time seeing us go back to big-time masses of soldiers types of war. However, at this point, we won't even defend our own borders. And we darn sure wouldn't nuke on our own soil. So if anyone ever gets close, we are going to need troops. Not that I think there would be a shortage of volunteers under those circumstances, but there would be expenses and lag time. The notion is that we would do something before enemy troops got here. But would we? What? And if we felt threatened, say from troops coming up from the south, would we be ready? Particularly if we slash our defense budget.

If it were to happen, today, I am not sure we would even fight the Japanese. I think we would revamp our defenses but that might be about it. We darn sure wouldn't fight Hitler. I think we'd just watch from afar and hope we could appease them.

Your argument assumes a premise which is questionable at best -- that is that a large military is what is needed to fight terrorism. That has hardly been found to be the case.

[PennyQuilts]

Our public schools need adequate funding and they're not getting that. Nowhere close. When funding IS the problem, adequate funding is the answer. That's not throwing money at the problem, that's paying the going rate for adequate government services.

When this discussion began, you wrote:

Good thing we brought that military back up to pre-Clinton levels to fight one war based on phony evidence and another against a borderless, amorphous enemy in a hopelessly corrupt state which will revert to the Taliban the second we leave.

Imagine if we had spent that money on our schools instead of breaking things and killing people?

I was responding to your statement - you didn't say spend "part" of the money - you indicated the money spent on the war could have been spent on the schools. IMO, that much money spent on education would amount to throwing money at the problem.

[Midtowner]

When this discussion began, you wrote:



I was responding to your statement - you didn't say spend "part" of the money - you indicated the money spent on the war could have been spent on the schools. IMO, that much money spent on education would amount to throwing money at the problem.

Schools was an example of something useful... Something not involving killing people and breaking things.

[PennyQuilts]

Schools was an example of something useful... Something not involving killing people and breaking things.

Well, I took your words at face value. I tend to be pretty concrete.

[mugofbeer]

So, are the Tea Partiers really a "hate" group or are they just being portrayed that way by the media?

[PennyQuilts]

So, are the Tea Partiers really a "hate" group or are they just being portrayed that way by the media?

They are a pissed off group - not the same thing, at all.

[Bunty]

But quite likely in great health, feeling quite bright eyed and bushy tailed to protest the health care bill. Are any of them ever seen in wheel chairs? I kinda doubt it. That question is more relevant than if tea partiers are ever black. or hate filled.

[Midtowner]

So, are the Tea Partiers really a "hate" group or are they just being portrayed that way by the media?

The media isn't so interested in the truth as they are dramatic TV.

There are certainly individuals in the group who are guilty of hate, but that is certainly not an unifying theme.

[mugofbeer]

But quite likely in great health, feeling quite bright eyed and bushy tailed to protest the health care bill. Are any of them ever seen in wheel chairs? I kinda doubt it. That question is more relevant than if tea partiers are ever black. or hate filled.

Yes, I had seen video's of a number of them in wheelchairs, a number of them quite elderly, video's show some of them are black. In fact, an African American Tea Partier I saw on an interview recently stated there would be many more African Americans attending if they weren't hearing so many insults, threats and outrage from members of their own community who find out they are participating. It seems there is quite a self-censorship effort within the black community for those who don't favor big government.