Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Response to Peezee's latest frothing-at-the-mouth diatribe
(I am responding to this post)
I watched appalled when that senile fool Reagan was elected.
Nonsense. But I expect as much from a Howard "I have a scream!" Dean shill.
While we've quietly raised a rich crop in scattered little plots...
Their little plots are fertile because they are sitting on top of a mountain of manure.
The citizenry howls to destroy the science standards in our public schools, or complacently votes to lower property taxes at the expense of our children's minds.
Like a true liberal, Peezee's solution to education is to throw more money at it but that is a vacuous solution.
The OECD report also details that higher spending does not necessarily convert to higher results - and that some education systems are more efficient.
South Korea spends about half the amount on school pupils as the United States, but its performance at maths is much higher.
Finland, the top-performing country at maths in 2003, spends much less than Italy, which was almost the worst-performing.
(source)
The District of Columbia spent the most money per student ($13,187) of any state or state equivalent.
(source)
Yet, their mean SAT verbal and math scores are the lowest.
(source)
In my state:
It should also be noted that, contrary to the popular belief that per-pupil funding has decreased since Prop. 13 (the 1978 property-tax-limitation initiative), per-pupil funding in California has actually increased over time. For example, an American Legislative Exchange Council study calculates that between 1976-77 and 1996-97 per-pupil funding in California in inflation-adjusted dollars rose 27 percent.
California, thus, is not penny-pinching education as much as some officials would have the public believe. Caution should therefore be exercised in blaming the poor performance of schools and students in the state entirely on the all too common complaint that not enough money is being spent on public education. Indeed, many studies show that there is little correlation between education spending and student achievement.
After examining decades of academic research, University of Rochester Prof. Eric Hanushek, the nation’s leading education economist, found that, "there is little systematic relationship between school resources and student performance." The point, says Hanushek, is that "how money is spent is much more important than how much is spent."
(source)
Thus, we see that funding is not the issue. Quite to the contrary, the problem with U.S. education can be directly attributed to the mismanagement of liberal educators and liberal unions who promote the interests of educators instead of students. Considering Peezee suckles from that teat, it should come as no surprise that he supports the further shakedown of taxpayers. The sense of entitlement he shares with other liberals is repellent.
|
I watched appalled when that senile fool Reagan was elected.
Nonsense. But I expect as much from a Howard "I have a scream!" Dean shill.
While we've quietly raised a rich crop in scattered little plots...
Their little plots are fertile because they are sitting on top of a mountain of manure.
The citizenry howls to destroy the science standards in our public schools, or complacently votes to lower property taxes at the expense of our children's minds.
Like a true liberal, Peezee's solution to education is to throw more money at it but that is a vacuous solution.
The OECD report also details that higher spending does not necessarily convert to higher results - and that some education systems are more efficient.
South Korea spends about half the amount on school pupils as the United States, but its performance at maths is much higher.
Finland, the top-performing country at maths in 2003, spends much less than Italy, which was almost the worst-performing.
(source)
The District of Columbia spent the most money per student ($13,187) of any state or state equivalent.
(source)
Yet, their mean SAT verbal and math scores are the lowest.
(source)
In my state:
It should also be noted that, contrary to the popular belief that per-pupil funding has decreased since Prop. 13 (the 1978 property-tax-limitation initiative), per-pupil funding in California has actually increased over time. For example, an American Legislative Exchange Council study calculates that between 1976-77 and 1996-97 per-pupil funding in California in inflation-adjusted dollars rose 27 percent.
California, thus, is not penny-pinching education as much as some officials would have the public believe. Caution should therefore be exercised in blaming the poor performance of schools and students in the state entirely on the all too common complaint that not enough money is being spent on public education. Indeed, many studies show that there is little correlation between education spending and student achievement.
After examining decades of academic research, University of Rochester Prof. Eric Hanushek, the nation’s leading education economist, found that, "there is little systematic relationship between school resources and student performance." The point, says Hanushek, is that "how money is spent is much more important than how much is spent."
(source)
Thus, we see that funding is not the issue. Quite to the contrary, the problem with U.S. education can be directly attributed to the mismanagement of liberal educators and liberal unions who promote the interests of educators instead of students. Considering Peezee suckles from that teat, it should come as no surprise that he supports the further shakedown of taxpayers. The sense of entitlement he shares with other liberals is repellent.
# posted by O'Brien @ 6/14/2006 03:53:00 PM 
