re: Reducing Welfare for Families of Failing Students

<blockquote><b>Quoting FroggysMommy:</b>" We don't necessarily need more money to fix our schools. Some schools need the money. But in the end... ... [snip!] ... make homework and lessons relate-able to life. Stop with the crap that no one is learning from yet we STILL insist on teaching!"</blockquote>




I agree with you about standardized testing. And some schools get way more money than others. If that is NOT the case, then why do aome schools (in low income areas especially) have so little? Funding should be fair across.the board. Giving some kids less.than others is just setting them up to fail and that's not right.

Quoting Viv, Ev & Gwen ♥:" <blockquote><b>Quoting TheNuge:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting FroggysMommy:</b>" ... [snip!] ... mean? "Teachers at home making lesson plans?""</blockquote> Most teachers come up with lesson plans after school hours."

Ah. I thought she was refering to parents.

Quoting Amelia Margaret:" I always did mine on Sunday night.  "

I get it now. I was confused  

Quoting Jude ♥ JGL:" <blockquote><b>Quoting FroggysMommy:</b>" We don't necessarily need more money to ... [snip!] ... should be fair across.the board. Giving some kids less.than others is just setting them up to fail and that's not right."

What is fair? Every student's funding is the same? Each community pays for their own kids? How much per student is reasonable?

Quoting TheNuge:" Ah. I thought she was refering to parents."

Well parents should be involved with their kids, I do believe that. But I first meant that teachers are at home, making their lessons. They should be engaging and fun, not mere time-fillers

Quoting FroggysMommy:" Well parents should be involved with their kids, I do believe that. But I first meant that teachers are at home, making their lessons. They should be engaging and fun, not mere time-fillers"

Oh yes. Im all for parents being VERY involved.
and, i agree about making lessons that are fun.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Jude ♥ JGL:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting FroggysMommy:</b>" We don't necessarily need more money to ... [snip!] ... should be fair across.the board. Giving some kids less.than others is just setting them up to fail and that's not right."</blockquote>


Wait, what?

Are you saying that poorer schools get less money?...because that is not true.

I'm on a student site council in the district and I know EXACTLY how much Federal and state money my home school gets, as well as how much each other school gets.

The poorer, more underprivileged kid's schools get waaaaaaay more money.

Federal money is brought in, in different ways but most of the money comes from low socioeconomic statuses. For instance, every kid who gets free/reduced lunches/breakfasts brings in more money than a high, state standardized testing score.

Our home district elementary school lost about $58k over the course of the last two years, because after they redrew school boundaries and opened up a new school, most of the lower income kids were pulles to the new school...who then, got all of the federal funding that we used to get. We went from a $70k budget to a $12k budget in two years time.

Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Jude ♥ JGL:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting FroggysMommy:</b>" ... [snip!] ... then, got all of the federal funding that we used to get. We went from a $70k budget to a $12k budget in two years time."

That is not true for everywhere. In Kansas City their inner city schools don't get smurf for funding. All the rich white schools get wayyyy more money. KC schools recently lost their accreditation also.

Quoting Tarynosaurus Rex:" That is not true for everywhere. In Kansas City their inner city schools don't get smurf for funding. ... [snip!] ... get smurf for funding. All the rich white schools get wayyyy more money. KC schools recently lost their accreditation also."

Through the state, itself or are you talking about federal funding?

Quoting ~Julie Blue Eyes~:" Through the state, itself or are you talking about federal funding?"

Most school funding is state funded regardless of where you live.
Either way, even combined, lower income schools in KC get way less money than the rich neighborhoods.

Quoting Tarynosaurus Rex:" Most school funding is state funded regardless of where you live. Either way, even combined, lower income schools in KC get way less money than the rich neighborhoods."

I understand that, but what I'm saying, is that the federal government actually gives MORE money in lower socioeconomical districts than the ones with a higher socioeconomic status.

Federal funding is the same, across the board, for all public schools, throughout the country. The only schools that receive less federal funding than the rest, are charter schools.

It is STATE budget cuts that are shortchanging the schools.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Tarynosaurus Rex:</b>" That is not true for everywhere. In Kansas City their inner city schools don't get smurf for funding. ... [snip!] ... get smurf for funding. All the rich white schools get wayyyy more money. KC schools recently lost their accreditation also."</blockquote>




When you say "get," who are you talking about? The federal tax payers or the state tax payers or the local ones in the district?
In Kansas, per student funding was over $12k. I can't find anything specific for KC and I do t know the wealthy district.

Also, are you referring to Missouri or Kansas?

<blockquote><b>Quoting Tarynosaurus Rex:</b>" Most school funding is state funded regardless of where you live. Either way, even combined, lower income schools in KC get way less money than the rich neighborhoods."</blockquote>




In 2012, the district spent $15 to $16k to educate each student.

Quoting Tarynosaurus Rex:" That is not true for everywhere. In Kansas City their inner city schools don't get smurf for funding. ... [snip!] ... get smurf for funding. All the rich white schools get wayyyy more money. KC schools recently lost their accreditation also."

This.

And poorly performing schools here have probationary periods where they must bring up their state test scores or they may be forced to turn charter status. Which is BULLSmurf. Charter schools are supposed to be alternative schools with an alternative form of education which can be more tailored to say, music, hands-on education, the list goes on. Charter schools should NOT be poorly performing schools turned charter status. Charter schools are wonderful but they arent great when it's almost as if its a punishment and money is taken away for not performing well on state tests.