Funding is not all that is needed. Leadership in appropriate spending of funds is also important. Here's a case of low performing schools getting MORE money and not using it wisely.
I would like to know more about this situation specificly, especially how the money was spent.
Problem Houston schools outspent high achievers
Web Posted: 03/07/2005 12:00 AM CST
San Antonio Express-News
HOUSTON — Three low-performing high schools where parents have complained about inferior resources and neglect spend more money per student than this city's top-performing campuses, a review of financial records by the Houston Chronicle found.
The parents' concerns were voiced after Houston School District officials recently proposed bringing in new management teams for the three schools.
The review's findings caught at least one school board member off guard, leaving school district decision-makers to look at other factors, such as low community involvement and weak leadership, to explain why Yates, Kashmere and Sam Houston high schools have not reversed years of poor academic performance.
"It's unfortunate that it takes a controversial issue to come up before our communities rally around the schools," said trustee Kevin Hoffman, whose district includes Kashmere.
"Everybody will show up for a football or basketball game, but you can't find anyone to show up for a PTA meeting or a community meeting regarding academics."
Superintendent Abe Saavedra cited the need to "fundamentally change the management" of the three schools in his call for leadership overhauls at the three campuses.
He said the reform groups that take over must redesign management practices and engage parents in the improvement effort.
Kashmere and Yates rank first and fourth, respectively, in terms of per-pupil funding among the district's 23 traditional high schools. Sam Houston ranks 13th.
"I was surprised that Kashmere is at the top of the list, because I've always gotten a different story from school leadership," Hoffman said.
In contrast, the district will spend $500 to nearly $2,000 less per student this year at three of its highest-performing schools: Lamar, Bellaire and Westside.
Those schools, where more than three-fourth of all seniors score better than 1,000 on the SAT, occupy the three lowest spots on the district's per-pupil funding list.
The district's budget formula gives more money to schools with higher populations of low-income students, those enrolled in special education classes and those who don't speak English as their first language.
Manny, the problem of school boards and district central offices rifling the till are widespread. There is plenty of that going on here in SA...you don't need to go to Houston to find it.
And it's in every district...not just Edgewood or South San or just the poorer districts. All of them.
I don't doubt it one bit, but you fix problems like that with oversight. Where is it?
*sigh*
In theory, that's what the school boards are for.
I remember having one particularly corrupt superintendent in elementary school. I could even still tell you his name. He was eventually tried and convicted of embezzling (sp?) from the school. If the city of Houston would be willing to go that route, it might reduce the problem dramatically.
yeah, we've have several here in san antonio... going to conventions, but only actually going to the beach..and charging sa taxpayers for everything.. trouble shooters did some nice pieces a few months back... pretty funny... i think the people just paid it back and weren't fired.. WTF???
What about consolidating some of the school districts?
We have our priorities."Everybody will show up for a football or basketball game, but you can't find anyone to show up for a PTA meeting or a community meeting regarding academics."
Manny, damn I hate to say this, but I agree with you. Money is not the
answer to the problem and where is the oversight. Oversight is in the
voters. But just look what has happened, the politcal machine has taken
over in most districts and the "average" voter does not get out and vote
in school board elections. The just and fuss but don't do anything
else.
People's attention torwards politics goes up as things get larger. However, the elections that have the biggest direct impact on day to day life, local elections, are the ones that are most often ignored.
You need look no further than the ACCD Bond election which had a HUGE impact on what happens here in Bexar county and only 3% of local residents voted.
This was even more disgusting given the days of "joy" and praise over the Iraqi election in the previous weeks.
Simply put, the average priorities of the average American citizen are not on local politics, regardless of how much it an effect it can have. That leads to a large lack of accountability, and it also leads to the system being controled by a powerful few.
Part of the problem is that the elections here are fragmented. Rather than having an election every month for each piddly thing, there should be elections at most every 6 months. That way, the elections would occur in a consistent cycle, and there would be more issues to get people's interest.
It's time we stopped blaming the schools and educators for social ills. This is what you get when you force both parents to work 40+ hours per week in order to afford to keep the lights on and still eat.The district's budget formula gives more money to schools with higher populations of low-income students, those enrolled in special education classes and those who don't speak English as their first language.
Nobody is forcing some parents to both work 40 hours when they could do just fine with one parent working.
Material wealth has ruined this country. I remember when things were so much simpler.
Nobody is forcing parents to work 40 hours a week?
Uh, I saw my mother try to support 3 kids on one income. It wasn't pretty. She did it, but don't sit there and act like it is a cake walk, because it is far from it.
Oh, and a second income woudln't have made us "materialy wealthy" but it would have put something better than fideo on the table.
Try living in California. There are very few families that could survive on one income.
Re-read what he wrote, Manny. "Nobody is forcing BOTH parents..." Obviously when there is only one, that one does have to work.
Material wealth itself, or the desire for (more) material wealth? If it's the latter, I tend to agree.
no, it is what made this country the most powerful and envied country in the world today...a desire to be better, do more, etc... in the u.s., unlike in many other countries, if you want to work you can become rich and powerful... that desire is why many immigrants come to the u.s.a... they know with some hard work they can make a successful life for themselves.. they can start by working 24/7 in a 7-11..then own it..then branch out to whatever else they want...
You make it sound like money is the only measure of success.
there are many measures... but being financially secure is one..
Without taking this discussion on a philisophical journey, that is the main problem with how this society defines itself, and you need not look for further proof than Clan's aformentoined post.
you keep talking about minorities making less money...obviously you think money is important too...
I think that money is a nessecity to survive in this society. When enacting change within a system it is best to do so gradualy unless you want to suffer cathastrophic consequences.
But, we have hard enough time keeping up in an analytical conversation without turning this into a philisophical one.
manny, not trying to rag on you, but your spelling kills me!
Yeah, when Jess isn't here posting with me, I can't spell worth a damn. F7 is most definetly my friend, but I'm too lazy to write this in Word, spell check it, then copy it over.
Actually, I just don't care that much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
