Do you think it's wise for the Government Funds to go to the lower performing schools? I go to a school that is one of the schools that doesn't recieve Government Funds because we're a high performing school. There is only two schools out of one of the biggest Unified School Distract in California that has to pay for everything and the students have to buy paper, glue, scissors, pencils, ect. because the school cannot afford it. We do not even recieve enough books! We have to have the hand-me-downs from the 'troubled' schools. All torn and written in.

They spend more time and money on the schools were kids don't give a damn. Is that a proper way of handling things?

(Note: When I say lower performing and higer performing I mean in Academics.)
-Sunset

Joey, lower performing are the schools with
the low test scores (I mean... really low), and everything thing you just mentioned.

I didn't mean take away money, but things need to be equal. My school is really, really, really old. (back when my grandpa was a kid) And all of the new schools are in the really, really, really bad part of my town. They need to even things out. Our money is being taken away for tax cuts, but the other 'bad performing' schools get twice the money. It's unreal.

And the school is so freaking dirty... bleck.
-Sunset

As a graduate of a perenially underperforming school district, I can see both sides of the coin. I graduated Detroit's Renaissance High School, which has been awarded the National Blue Ribbon for Academic Excellence. It is a Detroit Public School (just so I don't hear any questions about whether it is or not). It always upset me when I was issued my books and they were hand-me-downs from some of the, shall we say, less academically intense schools in the district. We got no higher treatment than any other Detroit Public School. All that being said, as an alumnus of an underacheiving district, I do not feel that the way to "deal with" schools that are not performing is to take money from them. Failing districts certainly cannot be helped by the withdrawal of funds. In this day in age, under our "President"'s "No Child Left Behind", the last thing we need to do is to start punishing schools. If we're truly in the business of educating our children, we must be willing to put up the money to ensure that it can be done.

I believe that Federal Funding should be given more to schools who's academic records fail to meet state standards...I feel that the state should ask the Federal Gov't. to allow the stipulations on Federal grants to be waved to a certain extent, and should be allowed to be used in areas where they need it the most, such as education.

OH MY GOD!!!
I can't believe it. Tell me u'r kidding sunset. They make it look like it's the students choice of whether they want to go to school or not. That's bullsh!t. It's just not fair. In our library, when u use up a piece of paper ofr research, it don't cost a thing. God, and i thought our school sucks.

P.S. yeah, i got u'r message on my yahoomail. Thanks for emailing me .

By low-performing, what exactly do you mean?

That's really a broad term, so specifically, are you talking about test scores, reading/writing ability, or what?


Personally, way too much money is being spent on government schools. Way too much.

And there's not much to show for it.

___I think depending on whether you are copying a piece of paper or printing out a new one, printer ink can get pretty darn pricey. The school I went to only charged if you were using the printers/copy machines for non-school things. (in other words, we needed a teacher's name to use as an excuse for using them).

meandi, I e-mailed you.

I know pencils and that sort of thing aren't a big deal... I just couldn't think of anything at 10:15 pm.

Here's some more examples:

We have to buy dry and wet earase markers for the teacher, dry ice for science, ect. ink for the computers, ect.

If you use up a piece of paper in the library for research it cost 50 cents a sheet! That adds up.
-Sunset

No, i don't think that it's wise for the government funds to go to the lower performing school becuase even if the lower schools DO get money, it wouldn't change anything. I mean, if u don't like to do your homework and you don't give a sh!t about school, how the hell is getting more money and being able to have everything you want for schoool help you study? Personaly, i think that the only people in the lower school's that should get money, are the people that REALLY care about those things:
*if they're gonna graduate
*if they do their homework
*if they get an "A" in the class
*if they're teacher is happy with them
*ect.
If it gets down to not being able to buy pencils, papers, glue and stuff, that's just bullsh!it. I think that the government funds should be given to people that need them, but when it's "oh my god, i don't have money to buy a pencil!" i think that the government should shut the **** up and give the money.
Also, if the government spends their funds on schools that don't give a sh!t about school, it is not a proper way to handle things.

P.S. I agree with you stupidity.
P.P.S. keep those topics coming Sunset, i luv u. Can you emai me at "xxxandme@yahoo.com" and tell me your email address??? I want to be your friend. Thanx.

___Well not getting the funding isn't going to make them try harder. Situations that are bad need a catalyst in order for change to occur. I think that they should alternate which schools get the funding and then determine which ones got the most use of the money or made the most improvements from it and then make a new decision from there. If the school isn't what I like to call a good investment.... screw it! Hard work should be rewarded more than slacking off should.