pudge's Journal: New Superintendent Dorn Gets Constitution Wrong 21
On Up Front today, the new Washington State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Randy Dorn, was asked whether the level of funding proposed was unconstitutional. He responded (starts at 9:18 into the video) that the State Constitution says "the paramount duty is to fund education."
That's not, of course, what the Constitution says. Rather, it reads, "It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders.
There's a huge difference between the two. You can, conceivably, provide the best instruction possible without any money at all. Dorn went on to bemoan his claim that Washington State is ranked low nationally in per-pupil spending, which is, to me, actually a very good thing.
It's just more evidence that many people do not distinguish between good education, and expensive education. And that is obvious nonsense. Children today have a worse public education than our parents did, and it costs a lot more to get it.
I am, of course, not suggesting there's necessarily an inverse relationship; I am only stating as obvious truth that there is no significant relationship between how good an education is, and how much you spend on it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
heh (Score:2)
I read a book a long time ago - Savage Inequalities [wikipedia.org] that talked about the disparity in spending on education in America. I think some of the conditions described in that book were of places where academic success would be almost impossible. I've never heard of any study that showed a correlation between spending and academic achievement - but there is probably some minimum point that needs to be reached. I think if that point is reached, after that the return on investment becomes much less. So I think
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's no minimum level of funding required. There are minimum conditions, such as a safe and disciplined environment. But no minimum funding. I've seen far too many examples of schools that succeed with what most anyone would consider well below the minimum.
Look up the Oakland American Indian Public Charter School. Ben Chavis, the principal and founder, has almost no money. They don't need much money. They don't use computers. They need books and a place to learn and teachers and the rest is mo
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is what the result is, not how much it costs.
What, you mean throwing more money at the problem isn't the best way to address our educational system???
I had an argument about this with a liberal friend a few days back. I was trying to make a case for vouchers and she started to say that public schools will never get better if we take funding away from them. She had no answer when I pointed out that the average private school tuition is less than the typical "per-student" cost of public schooling in our state.
I don't pretend to be smart enough to know
Re: (Score:2)
You should watch "Flunked [flunkedthemovie.com]."
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest problem is parents who either are not equipped or don't choose to help their kids. I'm not sure how that can be fixed either.
I think the second biggest problem is the NEA and getting rid of that wouldn't be easy either.
I think the third issue is the education professionals in our universities.
The best solution I've come up with so far is the opportunity for local involvement and influence. So that if parents do want things to be better, they have some opportunity to influence that.
I do
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest problem is parents who either are not equipped or don't choose to help their kids. I'm not sure how that can be fixed either.
How much of that has to do with the fact that in most households these days both parents work? Both parents are gone so the TV/video games/internet becomes the babysitter until they get home from work -- at which point they are too wiped to take an interest in little johnny's homework.
I wonder how much of that is by choice (we need the "American dream" of big screen TVs, two SUVs and a McMansion) and how much of it is by necessity (we can't afford to live on one income). I think I've seen both examples.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that much of what you mentioned costs money. And the larger the scale - the more money it will cost. I'm not sure how you can get around that.
I agree with you about attitude and ideas - but one cannot own a building without paying taxes on it - unless it is a church. But then there is still electricity, water, etc. And books aren't free. Then there are other supplies if any writing will be done, etc.
So I wouldn't even argue that it has to be a lot of money - but somewhere, somebody is goi
Re: (Score:2)
I would think that much of what you mentioned costs money.
But far less than what most people would consider the "minimal" amount. And still, it COULD be zero. Let's go for a hypothetical here:
Bill Gates says, I'll buy all the books you need for reading/writing/history/math/science. A bunch of retired teachers, janitors, repairment say, we will donate all our time for free. The buildings have been paid off, so there's just taxes, which government exempts them from.
You could, in theory, run the school for free. And it could produce better education than expensi
Re: (Score:2)
I could go with that - though the costs are just moved around.
And I realize you are primarily concerned with this local politician of yours and how it applies to the state constitution. Whereas I'm thinking of things in much more abstract terms.
I'm interested in that film - Flunked but it doesn't appear to be available via netflix. Are you aware of any means of watching it other than buying it?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you can watch Flunked yet, other than on DVD purchase. As soon as I hear I'll post it.
Basic Education (Score:2)
As I recall there have been some court fights over this. The upshot is the State Supreme Court more or less punted saying the amount of funding is a legislative not a court matter.
Personally I'd like to see school funding turned into per-student block grants that go directly to the school a student attends. Let the individual school spend said money as they see fit. Use audits to ensure it isn't mis-appropriated. Hold the principal accountable for results. However empower the principals to deliver the resul
Re: (Score:2)
Charter schools are a big loser in WA, because the WEA has convinced a gullible public that charter schools somehow hurt kids or are controlled by religious zealots.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd like to see school funding turned into per-student block grants that go directly to the school a student attends. Let the individual school spend said money as they see fit. Use audits to ensure it isn't mis-appropriated. Hold the principal accountable for results. However empower the principals to deliver the results as well.
I'd add one other idea to that: Divide up the funding by the number of days in the school year and don't pay the school for that student on days they don't attend. Let's see how quickly the public schools deal with truancy if their funding is tied to attendance.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that would cause the legislatures to give greater power to local districts to apprehend children -- perhaps against the will of parents -- outside of school, and maybe even to penalize parents directly. I am all for improving schools, but I don't want to give the schools any governmental power over the families. Let them control the schools themselves, fine, but outside of school ... no thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point I suppose. I just remember going to a school that had actual truant officers. I'm not even that old either. Would you have a problem with the concept if the parents supported it?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the parents have choice, that's fine.
Here's my thinking: if I don't tell the State about my homeschooling results, then they declare my child to be enrolled in public school, and then declare them a truant. And that's fine, I don't care what they do ... as long as they don't kidnap my child (which is what it would be if they do it against my will) and force them to go to school, or try to penalize me directly.
I can make my own choices about my children, and I don't need the state to either check
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I wasn't advocating for it against the will of the parents. The parent is (or should be) the final authority. If you want to homeschool your kids or even not school them entirely that should be no business of the state.
I work for an agency that deals with troubled kids and I've seen my fair share of kids that just plain refuse to go school. Then the state winds up bringing the parents up on charges of "educational neglect" or some such while at the same time refusing to provide any sort of enf
Re: (Score:2)
If your kid is refusing to go to school even when you tell them to you have even bigger problems.
I mean to a certain extent the state can provide a bit of a stick. However at some point the parents have to, you know, parent.
OTOH if the parents really want a truant officer to round their kids up then I suppose that might be helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Parents have to parent but it does seem strange that the school just lets the students walk out whenever they feel like it and then brings the parents up on charges. You also have to remember that (at least here in the People's Republic of New York) you'll go to jail if you actually discipline your kids with anything more severe than taking away their Wii. So we've created a system where the parents are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Not exactly... (Score:2)
"Lying" isn't "getting it wrong". How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips move.
Re: (Score:2)
"Getting it wrong" does not exclude "lying," though. I agree he was probably lying, but it could be he just really is that ignorant, that he thinks what he said is what the Constitution says or means.