Is it ever OK to say “I spent more on that, so I am in compliance.” Is spending more money the only way to demonstrate “success?”
I say this is the opposite of success. Are we going to allow school districts to shrug off poor results by spending more.
I really don’t understand the critics of California’s Local Control Funding Formula’s proposed regulations. The regulations allow you to:
1. Spend more (spend more money on students who need extra help), or
2. Provide more (provide more services to students who need extra help), or
3. Improve more (actually improve outcomes for students who need extra help)
It is the third option that is giving fits to some student advocates. As reported in the Mercury News
The executive director of Education Trust-West said the civil rights coalition supports combining the first two options and eliminating the third.”We think that’s the most rational way for them to actually comply with the law,” he said. “That would be providing for and spending more on high need students.”
What? Actually improving outcomes (whether or not you spent more money) is not OK? I think it is a huge concession to allow the first two options at all. Shouldn’t we insist on results?
Uncomfortably, I now sound like a ranting right-winger. However, as a taxpayer I want a return on my investment. It is a meaningless tautology to say that the measure of success of dollars invested is the number of the dollars invested.
Can a school district that continues to fail its most vulnerable students be given a pass just because it spends more money on them, or provides more services to them?
Photo Credit business.financialpost.com
I don’t want to be regarded as an ineffective person with good intentions just trying my best. That would never be tolerated in private industry.
FiscalShare 