Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker
So you are gven a vote on schools you have nothing to do with?
|
re. the schools thing ........there is no national curriculum on education apart from Federal requirements for the basics (Reading and Math). Each State sets its own education policy, this is then passed on to each county for a bit of 'tweaking' , obviously rural counties in the far north of California have different requirements than schools in urban inner cities and then on down to each school district (an example of a school district would be all the schools in Hyndburn) these folks elected to the local school board are responsible for keeping an eye on how the appointed school superintendant is spending the money (each school in California gets 'X' dollars per day per child attending , a child plays truant, the school loses a days money for that child) .
The school board decides what extra studies/policys will be implemented , in my area this could mean should non-english speaking children be taught in the same class as english speaking children (total immersion) or taught separatly until they reach a required level of comprehension . Or should a new school be built near to new housing or should existing schools be expanded to take up the slack
In a neighbouring district (inner city Oakland) one of their main priorities is gang violence , the enrolment being 90% ethnic minorities from deprived areas so the requirements are totaly different and as such can be dealt with at a local level , such as trying to deal with a high drop-out rate and low college entry .
One thing a Local school board can do is place a local propery tax on the ballot to raise extra money for the district , this is in addition to the money from the State , this can be used to attract better teachers with higher pay, or different skills (bilingual teachers in my district get more money than mono-lingual teachers , something I don't approve of, but the school board does)
Sounds a bit unfair that kids from "rich" areas with more money should be seen to be getting a better education than kids from poorer areas , but you have to remember that at the outset they all start out with the same 'X' dollars per day and if the local taxpayers want to add more as a future investment in all the kids in their own particular district so be it.
For an example .....if the taxpayers who live in the wealthy 'Ribble Valley' were offered an option of paying an extra £10 per year , the money to be spent on local schools and they said yes, and the taxpayers of more financially strapped Hyndburn offered the same option but turned it down , would you begrudge the 'Ribble Valley' kids having better teachers/schools/facilities ?
sorry for the ramble
