Rep. Ballentine asks "How much for your child?"

Here in the Blogland, we've always questioned the line of thinking that argues that the more you spend on education, the better results you'll get.

While we won't doubt there are legitimate needs out there, we would suggest that the present system gets looked at, and funding diverted from programs that don't improve test scores and allocated to those programs which work.

It's what they do every day in the private sector to keep businesses competitive ... and isn't that what our schools are supposed to be doing - making South Carolina more competitive?

Of course that's not what they're supposed to be doing - our schools are supposed to provide job security for educrats and guaranteed revenue for highly-paid consultants.

In his discussion of the need to address equitable and responsible education funding in South Carolina, fellow blogger State Rep. Nathan Ballentine asks the usual, inconvenient questions:

Do we really need FIFTEEN different classifications? In doing research, some states have only three…..1, 1.5, and 2.0? And aren’t these numbers arbitrary really?

Apparently we acknowledge a different “cost” (weight) for each “type” of student. However, one notable exception to me is the “Poor Kid”. (Is that politically correct to say?) My question is this: Wouldn’t most of us consider it more expensive to educate someone in a “poorer district”? Most would admit that in a “perfect world” it should cost the same to educate every child but if we already have a system of weights, shouldn’t we explore this concept?

I’m not saying we need to throw more money at the problem but (here goes the politically damaging part), shouldn’t we agree there should be some weight given to “rich” and “poor” kids? This would most likely mean that folks like me (representing “rich” districts) will have to give up some of “our money” to the “poor” districts. Because if we actually address this disparity, districts with a “poor kid” classication will receive more money than those with less students in that category.

Now, now, Nathan - asking a fair question isn't always fair. In fact, some would argue it makes you a Racistbigotsexistdiscriminatoryevilrichconservativecorporaterepublican.

But that's what we get called too, so keep up the good work.

His involvement in the process of examining how education funding is allocated is certainly appreciated and deserves public input. To read more, click here.

6 Response to "Rep. Ballentine asks "How much for your child?""

  1. moye in johannesburg South Africa 7/8/08 15:31
    Earl is that your son
  2. Earl Capps 7/8/08 18:00
    Moye - unless you know something I don't, I don't have any sons.

    The picture came off Flickr. It was intended to suggest the educrats are holding our kids for ransom.
  3. Anonymous 8/8/08 21:44
    At least nathan Ballentine and Earl Capps have exponentially more integrity than John Edwards.
  4. Earl Capps 8/8/08 21:47
    2144 - when it comes to Nathan, you're probably right. He's a class act and a great guy.

    As for me ... well, the jury's still out on me.

    But at least I won't go confusing ambulances for Milk Bones, that's for sure.
  5. Anonymous 8/8/08 22:58
    Earl - admit it, you're a kiddie pimp.
  6. air france lounge johannesburg moye 10/8/08 10:24
    He ain't mine either

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts!

To post a comment without having a Blogger account, select "Name/URL", put your name in, but leave the URL line blank. Email me if you'd like to comment, but need help making it work.