Michelle Malkin » Teachers’ Unions and the Housing Crisis

Teachers’ Unions and the Housing Crisis

By see-dubya • May 6, 2008 03:21 PM

This item is a few days old now–I saw it at Mary Katharine’s place–but it’s worth your time to read. I’m looking for a house and I read it and thought, yep, how true it is:

…the scarcity of good schools Frank identifies is not an inherent fact about the universe, but a consequence of the public school monopoly. In a competitive education market, a shortage of good schools in a given area would spur people to either start new schools or expand the best of the existing ones. But the public school system has few mechanisms for doing either of those things (charter schools are a very limited mechanism for starting innovative public schools). Which means that the supply of good public schools is artificially limited, leading parents to bid up their price.

“Frank” is Robert H. Frank, writing in the WaPo about the artificial pressures that drive even prudent, risk-averse homebuyers to take on more debt than they would like.

No one would fault a middle-income family for aspiring to send its children to schools of at least average quality. (How could a family aspire to less?) But if a family stood by while others exploited more liberal credit terms, it would consign its children to below-average schools. Even financially conservative families might have reluctantly concluded that their best option was to borrow up.

Those who condemn them see a different picture. They see undisciplined families overcome by their lust for cathedral ceilings and granite countertops, families that need to be taught a lesson.

Yet millions of families got into financial trouble simply because they understood that life is graded on the curve. The best jobs go to graduates from the best colleges, and because only the best-prepared students are accepted to those colleges, it is quixotic to expect parents to bypass an opportunity to send their children to the best elementary and secondary schools they can.

Of course, that granite-countertop contingent certainly exists, and worse, as Michelle has ably documented. But there are a lot of homebuyers who would gladly give up granite countertops for a good school district. I’m one of them. If I could, I’d take on an extra job to get my kids into a school where I expect they’ll learn more than how to defend against knife attacks.

I think Frank’s thesis about this pressure causing the subprime crisis is wrong, though, because despite the pressure the education-valuing contingent is probably going to be a little more realistic about their budgeting than the Jose Canseco conspicuous-consumption types. But I can testify it does exist, and it’s odd that we tolerate such inequity in what ought to be a public good.

If my trash collector threw my garbage all over the yard, mooned my wife, and kicked my dog, while two blocks away the service was quiet and efficient, letters would be written. If I got clean, pure drinking water from the tap while my neighbor got brackish sludge, the city council would probably hear about it. But schools, well, shrug, that’s what you get.

There are some ungainly, statist workarounds to this problem. Busing and redistricting might address some of the inequalities of the current system. But that’s merely spreading the mediocrity around instead of creating better schools. And any sort of attempt to re-jigger the way schools are funded–spreading money around the state instead of having it raised geographically from local property taxes–punishes people who did spend extra to buy in good districts. Anyway, it’s not always the amount of money that makes the difference–it’s the talent of the teachers and the skills of the school’s management. It’s also in the students a particular school attracts.

Which is to say, there’s a lot to be said for choice and competition. Union bureaucrats who complain that choice might produce inequity should take a long hard look at the current arbitrary system.

_________________

{Post by See-Dubya}

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Education,Subprime crisis

Printer Friendly

comments (49)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

#1

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:26 pm, libocrat said:

Urban schools are simply failure factories. Incubators for future libs……if you will.
#2

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm, Craig said:

The housing crisis = best education chances for their kids? That’s a bit of a stretch.
#3

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm, Romeo13 said:

LOL…

I live in the slums of Highlands Ranch Colorado… and the reason I moved here? Douglas County schools, some of the best in the State.

Now, thats slums with a 300K price….
#4

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:33 pm, tropicalwave12 said:

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm, Craig said:
The housing crisis = best education chances for their kids? That’s a bit of a stretch.

My sentiments exactly. More of an entitlment society and the “gotta have it now!” mentality.
#5

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:36 pm, USN RET said:

I was just reading on my local TV news site that my state(WA) just lost a 13 million grant for Advance Placement teachers becuse of the state teachers union. Seems they have a problem with teachers who do well getting bonuses.
#6

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm, Rusty said:

I mostly agree with the sentiments expressed here save for this:

And any sort of attempt to re-jigger the way schools are funded–spreading money around the state instead of having it raised geographically from local property taxes–punishes people who did spend extra to buy in good districts.

No it doesn’t. It punishes the children of people who can’t afford to live in swankier neighborhoods.

Instead of having a few great schools and a high number of dropout factories, it would make more sense to have every school funded equally. That’s the only way where we can have a true meritocracy where colleges accept the best students instead of the best students from a good area.

But this is the absolute truth:

Anyway, it’s not always the amount of money that makes the difference–it’s the talent of the teachers and the skills of the school’s management.

I believe DC throws more money per student at schools than any other jurisdiction in the country. And, due to epic mismanagement, DC’s public schools are a joke.
#7

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm, abstractmind said:

I agree with Craig, that saying one caused the other is a stretch. I can see how one could factor into the other, but not be a direct cause.

To demonstrate:

I am currently looking for a home as well, and with 2 small children coming up on the age where they would go to school, as a parent, i’m looking for the best educational opportunity I can provide. This means bringing scrutiny on the districts I am examining as a place of residence, to see how good the schools are in the area.

I would not, however, put myself into massive debt, just so that my child goes to a slightly better school than one that’s down the road. That doesn’t make good fiscal sense, and education can be augmented by *gasp* being a responsible parent, taking an active role in their education, and by making adjustments (such as see-dub is saying about having a second job) or trying to place the child(ren) in a private school if that’s available. I would think it would be at least uncommon, if not rare, where there was literally no alternative in these regards.

I personally believe that the problem we’re being forced to face is a result of everyone trying to keep up with the Jones’. In a bid to try and live the “American Dream”, and by living beyond their means, by not being responsible with regards to their housing options, and by signing up for things such as ARM’s without fulling taking into account that they may, in fact, have to pay the max allowed by the agreement if things go south overall…people have now fallen prey to their own greed/avarice/lifestyle and choices. And there comes a time when one is indeed forced to pay the piper.

I believe Michelle really does have this one on point, and that people need to Suck It Up, take responsibility for their actions, and that those of us who ARE responsible shouldn’t be bailing out those who are not.

I just have trouble believing that schools are the cause of it. Certainly a part of the process, and a consideration for sure, but not the root cause.
#8

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm, Christian Soldier said:

Teachers’ unions:

Your Socialist $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ at work.

We’ve got the schools (tax-payer funded) we deserve for not being vigilant.
#9

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm, geminicontender said:

I liked the principal in (Florida?) who wrote the email regarding school uniforms and the parents who complained that they couldn’t afford them. He basically told them to stop buying cigarettes, booze or large screen tv’s because their children deserved more than placing second to those items. When parents finally realize that their children are more important then themselves they might start to rise and expect better teaching from outside the home only after the child is loved at home and reaised with respect.
#10

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm, WestCoastCoconut said:

The ultimate nightmare for middle-income families would be to make the decision to go for the expensive home in the right neighborhood to get you into the right school…

I gladly did this for my kids. I remember as a kid moving from a quality school district to a one with lower standards, drugs and gangs. While I am paying a high tax rate and mortgage to have my kids in the right school in the right neighborhood. Away from gangs and major problems from where I grew up.

Is it worth it? Currently no equity, little savings and constantly budgeting every dollar to make ends meet. I’ll know when my kids have graduated from college and are successful productive citizens.
#11

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:55 pm, abstractmind said:

Rusty,
We can agree on this. Well put.

Instead of having a few great schools and a high number of dropout factories, it would make more sense to have every school funded equally. That’s the only way where we can have a true meritocracy where colleges accept the best students instead of the best students from a good area.

I believe, outside of just pure funding, that teachers NEED to be held to account to what’s being taught. As a whole, what’s needed is going back to the basics, and really teaching kids the Big 3 (reading, writing, ‘rithmatic as my grandmother says). Quality of education isn’t always dependant on funds. They don’t hurt when they’re present when used right, but the teachers we’re shoving into schools need to be fully funded AND have solid educational skills, so that children are learning what they need to be competetive in college (and later on in the work place).

And your point about DC schools…right on target. They’ve been in the toilet for some time now.
#12

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:56 pm, slp said:

Good schools are very important to our family.

Phoenix, Arizona is divided among many elementary school districts and a smaller number of high school districts.

By the time our oldest was ready for kindergarten, we had purchased a house in the Madison elementary school district because it was the best in the city. Scottsdale was too high priced for us.

The Washington district was in chaos from politics and monthly arguments at its board meetings. Paradise Valley was growing like crazy and so the schools were on double sessions.

When our children were in high school, Camelback was one of the best high schools. Our oldest says the quality has gone down hill since then. He and his wife are living in the Scottsdale district. Our daughter lives in the Washington district, but is sending her son to a charter school.

In the Phoenix area, the schools do make an important difference in the price of homes.
#13

On May 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm, LarryD said:

Union bureaucrats who complain that choice might produce inequity should take a long hard look at the current arbitrary system.

Cynical snicker. The union bureaucrats are protecting the jobs of the incompetent teachers, teaching the kids is down around item six on their agenda.
#14

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm, englishqueen01 said:

I tend to agree with Rusty (if I understand your comments correctly). Living in Milwaukee – where the public system is dismal and we refer to the district’s central office as the “Black Hole” (because it sucks up all the tax dollars within the county limits) – I am a big proponent of school choice programs, especially after the Irish model.

Competition is good not only for business, but for schools. Far too many teacher unions and bureaucrats have created a monopoly in public schools. Teachers can perform poorly, their students can have absysmal test scores, and the money pours in to “fix” things.

But. It. Never. Does.

Award teachers based on merit. Allow parents – whose tax dollars pay for schools – to use those dollars toward a school of *their* choice.
#15

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm, jhn1 said:

Start with the possible.
Going after the teacher’s unions who are protected by union mentality, complacent bureaucracy, and entrenched special interests is not the weak point.

Go after the textbook printers.
Rank them by how well they teach.
Then go at the elected school boards to insist on an answer (besides campaign donations) as to why the worst books are being bought.
Also go back and rate some of the old textbooks.
With POD (print-on-demand) it might even be possible to use old textbooks and pay royalties to the authors on having a district use old books instead of the complete replacement due to the new bi-annual replacement of the book by the publisher.
#16

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm, graysonret said:

I agree with Rusty on one point. D.C. schools, back in the ’50s, used to be just about the best in the country. But, due to loss of values/morals and mismanagement (corruption of the school council), D.C. has become one of the worst. D.C., I believe, puts more money, per student, than any other district in the country. “Green Valley” in No. Virginia was a neighborhood full of pride and respect. The older people will tell you about those days. Now, it’s a slum and the schools there are terrible. You can have the best teachers and unlimited money, but, if the students don’t care, it just won’t make it. Most good teachers want to teach at the good schools, not the poor ones. Can you blame them? Heck, I want to work in a good neighborhood too. Add to the mix, a corrupt teachers’ union, bent on politics rather than the school system, and you have disaster. My kids are grown up now, but if they were in school, I would have a heckofva time balancing budget vs good schools. When I was growing up, school pride was “number one”. It seems, now, they just don’t care.
#17

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:10 pm, libocrat said:

Abstract, the problems in public schools are clearly more severe in urban or shall we say BLUE area’s.

Why is that?
#18

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:10 pm, Craig said:

Abstract-

Here’s a great website: School Matters
#19

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm, Polar said:

Anyway, it’s not always the amount of money that makes the difference–it’s the talent of the teachers and the skills of the school’s management. It’s also in the students a particular school attracts.

It’s also parents who make a difference, probably as much or more than these other factors. Without a parent instilling proper attitudes and discipline, the others are bound to fail.
#20

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm, see-dubya said:

#2,4, & 7–

for the record, and just in case I wasn’t clear, I agree that this probably isn’t the cause of the subprime crisis. (See my fourth paragraph from the bottom.)

It is a ridiculous inflation on the housing market, though, which pressures people to take on more debt than they’re comfortable with.
#21

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm, AlohaGuy said:

Now, thats slums with a 300K price….

In Hawaii that’s called a garage.

The big joke here is how many public school teachers send their kids to private schools. The demand is so high parents do their best to get them into kindergarten so they can go all the way through. (But it’s shocking that after $200,000, some of those kids still don’t go to college.)

In some of the public schools there are not enough books for the kids to take one home, classrooms are over 95 degrees, but administrators are doing just fine thank you. You can have an MBA, a PhD, an MD or one of Michelle Obamas LMNOPs but you “aren’t qualified to teach”, so many who would gladly put in a few years after another career aren’t allowed into the classroom. (They go teach in the private schools.)

Many of you are familiar with the University of Hawaii (after their drubbing in the Sugar Bowl) and the 12-1 football team not having soap in the showers and that extends to other parts of campus. Classrooms have mold, they regularly leak massive amounts of water in storms leading to lifetimes of research disappearing, but legislators are only interested in building a second campus.

And yet, there are worse places for an education, sad to say.
#22

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pm, wrcnossen said:

What makes a great school can be summed up in one word – STANDARDS. Standards of proficency, learning, performance and behavior. It isn’t money or the quality of the teachers. The most novice teacher can follow the text book and the kids will get the required information. But if parents don’t support the standards, no teacher will be succesful.
#23

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm, graysonret said:

In Hawaii that’s called a garage.

In Northern Virginia, you get a refrigerator box, one outlet, and a fan, for that price.
#24

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:25 pm, Rusty said:

Abstract, the problems in public schools are clearly more severe in urban or shall we say BLUE area’s.

Why is that?

Um, because cities are heavily Democratic and feature more poverty and crime. That’s not a Dem issue. That’s an issue with bad areas being unable to properly educate children.

Some of the best public schools in the country are in the Metro area in Montgomery County, MD and Northern Virginia. Those areas are very, very blue.
#25

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm, abstractmind said:

See-dub…you were loud and clear. just my own take, but i understood yours just fine

libo…I wish I had an easy, text book answer, if you’ll pardon the pun, to your question. I grew up in a very (VERY) rural area. Our schools were, by comparison to city schools, poor, underfunded, and badly lacking on many fronts. I still graduated with honors, moved on to college and other things, and maintain that its the quality of the teachers, and not the school.

Just as a possibility, urban schools are (generally) overcrowded. Private schools (and yes, i was in one as well as a public school, where i graduated) tend to have a better student/teacher ratio. Could answer alot of questions when there are teachers that are overwhelmed by a mass of students they dont have time, or energy really, to assist as well as they could.

Another possibility is, and at the expense of sounding really country, the hustle and bustle of city life. I’ve noticed since living in a large city, that everything is so much faster paced. People get caught up in all there is here, and sometimes dont devote the same amount of time people in the country (again, a generalization, but, on par with my experiences) may have a little more time, or at least less to hustle and bustle about with, than their urban counterparts.

Urban settings as well, I believe, have more trappings for children than do their rural counterparts as well. It’s not to say that kids in the country dont have any vices, but, generally speaking, there are less negative influences to be found. There were no such thing as gangs like MS-13, or massive drug problems, when I was in school. Now…maybe a little different. It’s been a while. But I would think that urban settings would have more of these issues that rural settings. Again, generally. Specific locations are going to obviously vary.

Again…no simple answers. And nothing I can point to as a single reason. It’s bound to be more complex. For the moment, without putting more into this, that’s all I have to offer.
#26

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm, rambler said:

Good schools – now that’s an oxymoron!
I’ve lived in 3 states and dealt with 4 different school districts and they were all terrible. The text books contained too many pictures and poorly written texts. Public schools have been declining for decades.
#27

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm, inspiredhome said:

Our school district is average but we’re homeschooling anyway. More and more people are going for that option. Even the best schools aren’t really all that great when compared to other countries.
#28

On May 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm, GaMidnightRider said:

I am so glad my kids are grown. Here where i live they place more attention on sports than they do real academics. If you are a good football player you will get your diploma and never learn a thing. If you really want to learn then you are just sh%^ out of luck. They try to say at the council meetings that a good sports team means more money for the school district. I guess that is why they are paying a football coach 5 times what a normal teacher makes.
#29

On May 6th, 2008 at 5:12 pm, SpeakEasy said:

The whole key is dismantling the teachers union. Everything improves with competition and the ability to vote with your dollars. Competition transcends economics, geography, race, etc. That is true equality, the right to choose.

If you pay them, they will come.
#30

On May 6th, 2008 at 5:15 pm, libocrat said:

Yes Rusty, blue area’s are rife with crime. And drop outs. Good work libs!
#31

On May 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm, hunter said:

In my state, the topic of merit pay for teachers (ie competition) has been broached and quickly put down by the teachers union. I know that some teachers are good at what they do and do put in the effort, but the best are not going to go into teaching and live just above the poverty line for the next ten years while at the same time trying to pay off college loans. The teaching unions need to go, allow merit based pay and get some of the brightest minds molding the next generation of minds.
#32

On May 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm, TwoCents said:

What’s amazing is how little many people care about their local schools when buying a house. I do research for residential real estate developers, and often recommend that they price homes lower in areas that have terrible school districts because they “should” have more problems selling the homes. However, this is more often than not proving to be not true. Many buyers just care about the appearance of upper middle class life – granite counters, high ceilings and new neighborhoods – and they don’t even care about the schools. They assume if the neighborhood looks nice, everything else must be fine. Imagine paying $800K for a new home and getting failing schools (bottom 10-20% of the state in terms of test scores and/or graduation rates)! The tax base goes up, the schools get more money, and they still provide an inadequate (and biased) education.
Of course, these buyers are just a product of the failing education system that they silently condone. Bad education begets bad education.
#33

On May 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, Chard402003 said:

With the political leverage the teacher’s unions now enjoy, your kids are as likely to end up with a good teacher in a public school as you are to get efficient service at the DMV. There are still some good teachers left that try, but since the unions have removed any incentive to succeed, many don’t care.
#34

On May 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm, Romeo13 said:

The edifice of public education starts with the Colleges, and it all goes downhill from there.

Its like having Lawyers writing Laws, eventualy the system just ends up perpetuating itself, instead of doing the job it was intended to do.
#35

On May 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm, libocrat said:

Most urban school districts…Blue districts, if you will, are graduating half of their students. This is your liberal GREAT SOCIETY.
No accountability.
No standards.
No requirements.
No TAX CUTS.
#36

On May 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm, Klaatu said:

Ok, here’s the dirty little secret about schools and money. It’s secret because no one wants to talk about it.

The number 1 predictor of how well you will do in school is what womb you dropped out of. Rich people don’t move into school districts because they are good. School districts are good because rich people live in them. Wealthy people value education and pass on that value to their children, overtly and subliminally.

If you want to spend a whole lot of time checking this, go to sites like School Matters and look at school districts that are basically wealthy and have one school in a “poor” neighborhood. This is easy to do by looking for Title I schools. Invariably, the school in the poorer neighborhood will have lower achievement.

There are two commonly used antidotes to this situation. 1.Pour an extraordinary amount of extra resources into the school. 2. Run a good Pre-K and kindergarten so you can get the kids away from their parents as early and as long as possible. Each of these will work. The problem is “equity.” It is almost impossible for a district to disproportionately allocate resources among schools, even when it is justified. So, schools that will get along fine, thank-you-very-much, end up getting resources they don’t need when more are needed elsewhere.

However, it is bigoted and foolish to say this is a universal truth. Supportive parents of any income level can make their children succeed. It is just harder when few people around you are on that bandwagon, just as the opposite is true.

It is sad to say that indifference to education is spreading to all social strata. An overindulged generation has grown up with a you-owe-me attitude fueled by getting everything they want with little effort. Similarly, discipline and self-discipline are an oddity nowadays.

What do we expect? People aren’t getting into hock for a house in a good school district. They get in over their heads for the sake of granite countertops and 1,000 sq. ft. bathrooms. It just so happens that such houses are in neighborhoods filled with rich people and their schools are better.

The old adage is true: you’re judged by the company you keep. Just as true: better schools are, indirectly, a result of a meritocracy.
#37

On May 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm, see-dubya said:

People aren’t getting into hock for a house in a good school district.

I tell you, I am about to do exactly that.
#38

On May 6th, 2008 at 6:25 pm, Klaatu said:

On May 6th, 2008 at 6:12 pm, see-dubya said:

People aren’t getting into hock for a house in a good school district.

I tell you, I am about to do exactly that.

Would you be willing to buy the worst house in the district? Realtors will tell you that is smart to buy the worst house in a good neighborhood rather than the best house in a lesser neighborhood.

If you are buying for the sake of the schools, buy cheap. Better yet: rent. You will be somewhat insulated from tax hike shocks. Also, unless there is a good sized commercial base in the district, be forewarned about tax increases. If you are the poorest guy in the district, everybody around you will care less than you do about tax hikes. The neighbors might not blink on what will make you choke.
#39

On May 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pm, libocrat said:

Klaatu said:The number 1 predictor of how well you will do in school is what womb you dropped out of.

How true. Losers beget losers.
Losers vote Democrat, have babies and stay losers.
#40

On May 6th, 2008 at 9:39 pm, NY Andy said:

see-dubya,

Schools had a lot to do with my decision to move across Rockland county. My son was told by another student that if his older brother saw him wearing his red jacket, the color of the bloods, he would be stabbed. This was in 4th grade in a racially mixed middle class neighborhood. My wife and I decided we had to be out before my son reached high school. The HS was large, incompetent, and violent. Gangs owned the hallways and only white students were disciplined consistently.

We moved to a district where there are less than 200 children in each grade. We are much happier now and the boys are much safer.

If I were you, I would be sure to look at the size of the schools. The smaller comunity schools seem to be able to do a better job of educating and they generally provide a better environment.
#41

On May 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pm, thefoundingfathers said:

The more I read the more I am glad we home school.
#42

On May 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm, freaksloan said:

I moved 45 miles from were my job is. I moved to a small country village that has a nuclear power plant in its tax district, so they are one of the richest schools in the state. They are also one of the highest rated school districts in the state.

I also built my house including a 1/2 acre lot for $115,000 which would of cost well over $200,000 in the city in which I work. Also my property taxes are $1200 the lowest in the state. I will take the 45 mile commute to have my kids go to a great school and live in a safe town. Also, I didn’t have to go into debt.

Hey, Government I should be rewarded. Not the idiots who buried themselves in debt.
#43

On May 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am, love2rumba said:

A major disappointmenr over the last 10 years has been the utter failure for School vouchers to be implemented.

The reasons: 1.Teacher Unions don’t want competition while sending their kids to “Running Start” programs that others can’t get into.

2. Too many Republicans and Democrats with money don’t want their elite private school opened to middle-class/poor rabble
#44

On May 7th, 2008 at 8:17 am, NJRepublican said:

Anyway, it’s not always the amount of money that makes the difference–it’s the talent of the teachers and the skills of the school’s management.

Amen to that.
Thanks to a State Supreme Court ruling, NJ plays Robin Hood and takes from the “rich” and gives to the poor. Problem is, it’s not just the rich, it’s the middle class too. Our property taxes then have to go up to pay for our own schools. Then a few years ago, the State introduced a budget cap, but it doesn’t exempt insurance, so even failing suburban schools can’t throw money at the problem to make it better and we’re having to cut sports and languages and music. Corzine has proposed a new funding formula set to negate the need for “Abbott Districts” but it actually gives them more money. To top it off, the ACLU among other groups are fighting the new formula:
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-10/120961659366210.xml&coll=1
Meanwhile, here’s a look at what an audit of Abbott district Union City has found – the most aggregious being a contract for the bus drivers to be paid 6 hours overtime to charge their school cell phones:
http://www.nj.com/hudsoncountynow/index.ssf/2008/04/lawmakers_slam_outrageous_offe.html
#45

On May 7th, 2008 at 11:55 am, Southpaw said:

The current educational system is a nineteenth century anachronism, crumbling at the core, failng in it’s mission and (like many of todays American institutions) doing real harm to the prosperity of the nation. Nothing short of complete restructuring of the system from the ground up is going to make it relevant to educating American children in the 21st century.
#46

On May 7th, 2008 at 1:44 pm, southsideironworks said:

My property values would probably be HIGHER if my local school system didn’t suck.
#47

On May 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am, smellycat41 said:

I have been in the business of education for 33 years now and I have watched our schools turn from institutions of learning to INDOCTRANATION CENTERS FOR LIBERALISM! The SAD part of it is the kids are buying into it hook line and sinker!!!
#48

On May 11th, 2008 at 3:48 pm, Lee Hazel said:

There is really only one answer(two parts) to the problem of shoddy under performing schools. and, it is not more money.

The federal presence needs to be severely reduced. The how and what of the education of our children was and should be returned as a local resposibility removing the federal bureaucrats from the equation.

The second part of the answer is to take a hint from Ronald Reagon and do away with the union influence on our education system. It simply has no place in this vital aspect of our social fabric. The sloth and obstruction, by the unions, of real educational systemic improvement must be dealt with.

PC will get us all
LEE
#49

On May 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm, codegator said:

When my wife and I were faced with the decision of which school district to buy into we opted to go against the grain and buy a reasonably priced home in a decent area where we could educate our kids at home. That decision didn’t make us popular with the local school district or the local real-estate agency, but it turned out to be the right call for our family. My house isn’t big or fancy but my kids can read and write. That’s good enough for me. Oh yea, and the government won’t have to make my mortgage payments either.