Post a New Topic
Board sets $378 million school-bond vote
Original post made
on Feb 27, 2008
Palo Alto schools will be getting bigger and better, school board members said Tuesday as they unanimously approved putting a $378 million bond measure on the June 3 ballot.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 1:11 AM
Posted by solon
a resident of Professorville
on Feb 28, 2008 at 12:23 am
As is well known in educational circles, including e.g. Stanford, there is NO CONNECTION between money expended and outcome in student achievement.
These schools are AWASH in money, high salaries, very high administration ratios, high maintenance, etc. Where is the improvement (and in what?) from the last half-billion?
Second, ARE PALO ALTO SCHOOLS REALLY ANY GOOD AT ALL? Yes, there are many great kids, many achievers, many attending 'name' schools, etc., but it this a 'school effect?'
Laswt bond issue, we were ranked high due to 1) high income level of community, 2) high education level of community and so on, dedicated parents,stable households, time spent with the kids, activities,such as sports, theater, violin, you name it, test prep courses, tutors, well,what has any of this to do with the schools?
Are government schools even a significant factor in how well many of these good kids do? Kids have parochial schools, secular schools, Christian schools, Jewish schools, and home schooling, there is a real question about even the need for government schools, let alone whether they are positive or negative,as they are for many of the kids who attend them.
Where is the objective data on the SCHOOLS as opposed to aggregate test data on the STUDENTS?
Sorry, the money argument doesn't wash. MORE MONEY does not change STUDENT OUTCOMES.
But, who wants to kill the real estate golden goose? No one. So, "the schools are excellent!" What's another half billion ( in round numbers.)
At the very least, there should be school choice law, as in say Iowa, a child can go to any government school I think they want to, so schools have to keep up or lose students.
This is fairer, gives parents more control and satisfaction, creates a fluid market for good teachers, and operates efficiently to gently weed out schools, principals and teachers who maybe should perhaps be doing something else. Good teaching is hard, takes time, is a difficult skill, and just can't be done well by everyone who gets tenure in a few years.
SO, please, vote the money if you want, but don't think it will help the students at all, but I agree it may help real estate values to drive by better looking buildings.