Should taxpayer dollars be used to fund private education?

[Aliantha]

When considering the problems in education, if you had to choose, would you say this is a social issue or an economic issue?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

When considering the problems in education, if you had to choose, would you say this is a social issue or an economic issue?

I would say social, it isn't that we don’t' have the money to fund the inner city schools it is just that we don't know what to do with the money. If you send more money to them it will most likely be wasted, if you don't send money it only makes things worse.

In Wisconsin, there is a nation wide test and the schools that get a higher score will get more funding while the schools that get lower scores get less. I don't get the point of this except to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Where did anyone first learn the numbers? An assumption without first learning facts: private schools must be better education. An assumption based in business school logic: because the education is more expensive, then it must be better. Folks - this thread is chock full of assumptions better described as lies. No wonder George Jr thinks we are all so dumb as to believe his lies about an Iraq Surge.

I don't know what public school you are talking about. I am talking about inner city schools not suburban schools, where you have a good point. Suburban schools are very good and are arguably better than private but inner city schools? I would like to see statistics saying that those are better than private.

tw brings up a good point nevertheless. I still think we should get some inner city kids out of those public schools and move them to better public schools. It won't cost any more money to taxpayers and give some kids a better opportunity to succeed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I would say social, it isn't that we don’t' have the money to fund the inner city schools it is just that we don't know what to do with the money. If you send more money to them it will most likely be wasted, if you don't send money it only makes things worse.

The results in Newark NJ were famous. Did you read it? Annoying. Yes - because reality is that blunt. State of NJ took control of the Newark Education system. They threw so much money into it that students in Newark had more money per student than any other state public school. And still the school system was not performing.

Money does not solve problems. If it did, then GM cars would be the world's best. Instead, GM cars are among the world's worst. When money is a solution, then we have communism or graduates of the business schools.

It is a well proven fact even in schools. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. No way around god's 1st commandment. Without first learning concepts of quality, then a solution is not possible. What is the enemy of business school propaganda? Concepts even taught by William Edward Deming. Another cited an example previously: 'The Goal' by Goldratt and Cox. Different description. Same concept. Too touchy-feely for some because it also requires another important principle - coming from where the work gets done.

Throwing money at a problem is what Ross Perot described as GM's problem. Roger Smith - classic MBA - would throw money at problems as if money were a grenade. Want to see which schools have better top management? Look at the parking lot on Parents-Teacher night. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to who?