Which is weird since conservative politics is all about cutting funds for schools, gutting the department of education completely, no pre k or free lunches for kids, and getting rid of a large portion of our law enforcement. Just doesn’t make sense why any one who cares about education or safety would be conservative
getting rid of a large portion of our law enforcement
I’m pretty certain neither party supports this. After 2020, every state and city, including dem-run ones increased police funding.
If you’re talking about republicans complaining about the FBI because it went after Trump, they’re just as likely to abolish prisons because some jan 6ers got convicted. These people like those institutions too much when they’re doing their primary purpose of neutralizing leftist political movements.
Also you’re not private property nor do you own significant capital. It’s not your law enforcement.
Not all conservatives are that way. I support free meals at schools. It makes sense. It’s investing in our children.
Cutting is a complicated topic. The general consensus is throwing money at a problem isn’t the way to solve it all the time. So I’m not for or against spending on schools until we know what problem the money will solve. If we can’t show a benefit then it shouldn’t be spent.
Kansas City spent over a billion dollars trying to fix their schools and it didn’t work. Wasted money.
Cutting law enforcement? Most conservatives want more law enforcement.
Also don’t confuse the people who are shit stains with an old school conservative like myself. They’re not the same thing.
You should look past the Cato Institute’s analysis of the KC schools situation. For example, the summary and conclusion sections of this article from the University of Michigan law school show that the conservative criticisms are based on myth.
I lived it. I have not see the Cato analysis and I can speak from experience and the watching the news.
The goal was to desegregate the schools. That failed. The second goal was to increase test scores. That failed.
I’ve only skimmed the article you’ve posted but I’ve found numbers errors. It’s fifty pages, so it’ll take some time to get through it. They’re twisting things to silly extremes like minimizing the amount of money Kansas City has to spend.
You may revise your opinion after reading the summary and conclusion, but maybe you just figure the liberals at Michigan Law can’t possibly understand all the nuances vs someone watching their local news.
Also, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Your skimmed analysis of silly twists of numbers belies the full picture, and in my opinion, total desegregation without changing the major obstacles of the systemic segregation of the city’s real estate, was doomed from the start.
BTW, I agree with you that merely throwing money at an issue without cause isn’t correct. One might argue against the ridiculous and constant over-budgeting of the military, for example. In KC, I believe it had many successes, though obviously not a complete realization of the goals (that shouldn’t have needed to be implemented in the first place).
It’s 59 pages. So I’ll read it but it won’t be till this afternoon. Skimming any article is prone is errors and it’s why I’ll have to read it.
The goal was to raise test scores and integrate the schools. The primary goal was integration.
It failed because geographic areas. Kansas City is a massive city. I lived in the burbs which means the cab would pick me up at 4am.
The military isn’t over budget. It’s about 3% of our gdp. Our commitment to nato is a minimum of 2%. Since the military paid for my college, I’m a staunch defender of it.
The Pentagon asked for less. It most certainly IS over-budget. When I say “the military” I mean the Military Industrial Complex, of course. I’m a supporter of our military, of the people actually in it. With a budget greater than the next ten countries combined, the M-I-C is outlandishly frivolous.
Regarding this, but more to the KC schools topic, it seems like your philosophy of budgeting is that only 100% = success, and anything less = failure.
We have a large budget because we are a rich nation. I have zero issues with what spend as a total. I have issues with why does a plane cost 120 million. It seems we have a lot of waste built in that needs to be reduced.
They had almost zero success. It’s one of those cases where it’s fascinating to read. The schools became so bad they lost their certifications.
1)Zero issue with what was spent. Why does it cost so much?
Cognitive dissonance much?
—
2)Almost zero success.
I disagree, but it’s way too complicated for you and I to hash out here, especially coming at the issue from opposite ends, you as a perhaps general citizen and me as a teacher. Maybe a long hangout at the corner coffee shop would be in order some day.
How would they prove to you that the funding for schools is necessary? What studies do you require? How is the state going to conduct these studies (in your view), in a timely manner that will positively impact this generation?
There is plenty of research showing, e.g., that fewer kids per teacher provides for better education. Studies that show the benefit of school nurses, counselors, and other wellness experts. All of this costs $$$, often way more money than any given community is willing or even able to put up. This is why strong state funding is so important, rather than relying on levies and bonds. Requiring your specific state to prove the value of teachers, special education, etc is quite an ask. Why isn’t the existing research good enough for you?
Studies have shown that spending more per student doesn’t increase the quality of the education. That has been proven time and time again.
Yet some people think funding is the issue.
The I attended two high schools, one spent about twice as much as the other but the other school out performed the other. It’s not always about the money.
That’s an exaggeration. The median price for new construction in 1980 was $64,600. [1] As for existing housing stock, the median home value in 1980 was $47,200. [2] As housing prices are heavily right skewed, the prices of cheap housing is far closer to the median than the price of expensive housing. Based on a cursory overview of some charts, it seems like the bottom 20% of houses are no more that 30% cheaper than the median, putting them in the $30k range.
Which is weird since conservative politics is all about cutting funds for schools, gutting the department of education completely, no pre k or free lunches for kids, and getting rid of a large portion of our law enforcement. Just doesn’t make sense why any one who cares about education or safety would be conservative
I’m pretty certain neither party supports this. After 2020, every state and city, including dem-run ones increased police funding.
If you’re talking about republicans complaining about the FBI because it went after Trump, they’re just as likely to abolish prisons because some jan 6ers got convicted. These people like those institutions too much when they’re doing their primary purpose of neutralizing leftist political movements.
Also you’re not private property nor do you own significant capital. It’s not your law enforcement.
Not all conservatives are that way. I support free meals at schools. It makes sense. It’s investing in our children.
Cutting is a complicated topic. The general consensus is throwing money at a problem isn’t the way to solve it all the time. So I’m not for or against spending on schools until we know what problem the money will solve. If we can’t show a benefit then it shouldn’t be spent.
Kansas City spent over a billion dollars trying to fix their schools and it didn’t work. Wasted money.
Cutting law enforcement? Most conservatives want more law enforcement.
Also don’t confuse the people who are shit stains with an old school conservative like myself. They’re not the same thing.
You should look past the Cato Institute’s analysis of the KC schools situation. For example, the summary and conclusion sections of this article from the University of Michigan law school show that the conservative criticisms are based on myth.
I lived it. I have not see the Cato analysis and I can speak from experience and the watching the news.
The goal was to desegregate the schools. That failed. The second goal was to increase test scores. That failed.
I’ve only skimmed the article you’ve posted but I’ve found numbers errors. It’s fifty pages, so it’ll take some time to get through it. They’re twisting things to silly extremes like minimizing the amount of money Kansas City has to spend.
You may revise your opinion after reading the summary and conclusion, but maybe you just figure the liberals at Michigan Law can’t possibly understand all the nuances vs someone watching their local news.
Also, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Your skimmed analysis of silly twists of numbers belies the full picture, and in my opinion, total desegregation without changing the major obstacles of the systemic segregation of the city’s real estate, was doomed from the start.
BTW, I agree with you that merely throwing money at an issue without cause isn’t correct. One might argue against the ridiculous and constant over-budgeting of the military, for example. In KC, I believe it had many successes, though obviously not a complete realization of the goals (that shouldn’t have needed to be implemented in the first place).
It’s 59 pages. So I’ll read it but it won’t be till this afternoon. Skimming any article is prone is errors and it’s why I’ll have to read it. The goal was to raise test scores and integrate the schools. The primary goal was integration. It failed because geographic areas. Kansas City is a massive city. I lived in the burbs which means the cab would pick me up at 4am. The military isn’t over budget. It’s about 3% of our gdp. Our commitment to nato is a minimum of 2%. Since the military paid for my college, I’m a staunch defender of it.
The Pentagon asked for less. It most certainly IS over-budget. When I say “the military” I mean the Military Industrial Complex, of course. I’m a supporter of our military, of the people actually in it. With a budget greater than the next ten countries combined, the M-I-C is outlandishly frivolous.
Regarding this, but more to the KC schools topic, it seems like your philosophy of budgeting is that only 100% = success, and anything less = failure.
We have a large budget because we are a rich nation. I have zero issues with what spend as a total. I have issues with why does a plane cost 120 million. It seems we have a lot of waste built in that needs to be reduced.
They had almost zero success. It’s one of those cases where it’s fascinating to read. The schools became so bad they lost their certifications.
1)Zero issue with what was spent. Why does it cost so much?
Cognitive dissonance much?
—
2)Almost zero success.
I disagree, but it’s way too complicated for you and I to hash out here, especially coming at the issue from opposite ends, you as a perhaps general citizen and me as a teacher. Maybe a long hangout at the corner coffee shop would be in order some day.
How would they prove to you that the funding for schools is necessary? What studies do you require? How is the state going to conduct these studies (in your view), in a timely manner that will positively impact this generation?
There is plenty of research showing, e.g., that fewer kids per teacher provides for better education. Studies that show the benefit of school nurses, counselors, and other wellness experts. All of this costs $$$, often way more money than any given community is willing or even able to put up. This is why strong state funding is so important, rather than relying on levies and bonds. Requiring your specific state to prove the value of teachers, special education, etc is quite an ask. Why isn’t the existing research good enough for you?
Studies have shown that spending more per student doesn’t increase the quality of the education. That has been proven time and time again.
Yet some people think funding is the issue.
The I attended two high schools, one spent about twice as much as the other but the other school out performed the other. It’s not always about the money.
deleted by creator
That’s money in 1980 dollars. 15k per year was a lot of of money. A house was about 20-25k.
That’s an exaggeration. The median price for new construction in 1980 was $64,600. [1] As for existing housing stock, the median home value in 1980 was $47,200. [2] As housing prices are heavily right skewed, the prices of cheap housing is far closer to the median than the price of expensive housing. Based on a cursory overview of some charts, it seems like the bottom 20% of houses are no more that 30% cheaper than the median, putting them in the $30k range.
We are talking Kansas City. Not a general area like the Midwest.
My parents home was 20k in 1975. My grandparents homes were about 10k in the same time frame.
Kansas City was very cheap at the time. Yes there were more expensive homes but in the 1980’s working class families didn’t have McMansions.
1975 =/= 1980. Looks like housing went up 64% in those 5 years from the data I already linked.
The data isn’t relevant since it’s not for the area defined. We are talking about a specific geographic area. Kansas City proper.
Due to the white flight of the 70’s housing prices declined or only grew fractionally.
When my grandparents died, each of their homes only sold under 20k in the late 90’s early 20’s.
Comparing the price of home across the Midwest has nothing to do with the price in East Kansas City or SE where I went to school
Data instead of anecdotes?