I think schools should be segregated.....

[Anonymous 1]

Not by race but by parent and student involvement. If you’re low income and determined for your child to get a great education you should have access to a school that is funded to the level of a school in an affluent suburb. However, if you and your child decide to skip school, blow off homework, and you don’t value an education, then let’s just toss your kid in a school that provides a very basic education and is minimally funded.

You can’t throw enough money into a school to make parents and children care.

[Anonymous 2]

California is blocking charters because the teachers union doesn't want to only be stuck with the kids whose parents don't care.
The true problem lies with the teachers union.

[Deleted User 670]

California is blocking charters because the teachers union doesn't want to only be stuck with the kids whose parents don't care.
The true problem lies with the teachers union.

The true problem is how schools are funded. They're funded mostly at the local level. Richer counties get better schools than rural or poorer ones.

[Anonymous 2]

California is blocking charters because the teachers union doesn't want to only be stuck with the kids whose parents don't care.
The true problem lies with the teachers union.

The true problem is how schools are funded. They're funded mostly at the local level. Richer counties get better schools than rural or poorer ones.

No the schools get a lot of funding in ada. The problem is that the teachers union won't allow a tenured teacher to be fired. The poorer districts tend to get stuck with the terrible teachers too.
Nationally, the most recent data indicates $11,762 is spent on public education per student. Significant variation exists across states; New York spends more than $20,000 per student, while states like Utah and Idaho report spending about a third as much.
Almost $12,000 per student. That's $360,000 per classroom of 30 students. And teachers are underpaid! Obviously some of the funding has to go to things like administrative costs, maintenance, and such but the money is there.
Adjusting for inflation schools have more money than ever so why are the results not there? Its not because of funding.
By the end of the 2004-05 school year, national K-12 education spending will have increased an estimated 105 percent since 1991-92; 58 percent since 1996-97; and 40 percent since 1998-99. On a per-pupil basis and adjusted for inflation, public school funding increased: 24 percent from 1991-92 through 2001-02 (the last year for which such data are available); 19 percent from 1996-97 through 2001-02; and 10 percent from 1998-99 through 2001-02.

[KendallsMom]

That would be wonderful...

[agander2017]

I think the bigger issue is finding out what schools are suited to helping those students that seem to, as you put it, not care about school, and do the minimum. Now I know some students are like that. They couldn't care less about school. They want to do other things with their time. However, there are students that have fallen through the cracks, and can't get the help they need, so they give up.

They are not all in the same category. I don't think schools should be segregated. That wouldn't help. They need to be better funded, no matter where they are. The kids are the ones that suffer when adults make these decisions that they think are best.

[MonarchMom]

Not by race but by parent and student involvement. If you’re low income and determined for your child to get a great education you should have access to a school that is funded to the level of a school in an affluent suburb. However, if you and your child decide to skip school, blow off homework, and you don’t value an education, then let’s just toss your kid in a school that provides a very basic education and is minimally funded.

You can’t throw enough money into a school to make parents and children care.

So in your model of schools the children who are not blessed with parents that have the time, resources or will to advocate for them get less educational support than the more fortunate. Is that correct?

[Anonymous 1]

California is blocking charters because the teachers union doesn't want to only be stuck with the kids whose parents don't care.
The true problem lies with the teachers union.

The true problem is how schools are funded. They're funded mostly at the local level. Richer counties get better schools than rural or poorer ones.

You can throw as much money as you want into an inner city school, but if a meaningful percentage of the parents and students don’t give a f**k it won’t make any difference at all. Decrease the funding for those that don’t care and throw that additional money into separate schools for students and parents that make an EFFORT. I’m not suggesting reducing funding based on performance at all, but rather based on effort and involvement.

[Anonymous 1]

Not by race but by parent and student involvement. If you’re low income and determined for your child to get a great education you should have access to a school that is funded to the level of a school in an affluent suburb. However, if you and your child decide to skip school, blow off homework, and you don’t value an education, then let’s just toss your kid in a school that provides a very basic education and is minimally funded.

You can’t throw enough money into a school to make parents and children care.

So in your model of schools the children who are not blessed with parents that have the time, resources or will to advocate for them get less educational support than the more fortunate. Is that correct?

No. In my model if BOTH students and parents don’t give a f**k then they don’t need to screw things up for those trying to actually get an education.

[SallyMae]

If the parents don't care the kids need the school more than ever. ALL schools should be funded to excellence.