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.
I have zero issues with the total dollar amount spent. 3% of our gdp means we spend less than many mentions. It doesn’t mean the money is always spent well.
I don’t we are on the opposite end unless you don’t value eduction. I heavily value education.
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.
I have zero issues with the total dollar amount spent. 3% of our gdp means we spend less than many mentions. It doesn’t mean the money is always spent well.
I don’t we are on the opposite end unless you don’t value eduction. I heavily value education.