3 ms·
> (And no, putting more money into them probably won't solve the problem.) I don't disagree with this, but I generally advocate for higher funding because more
by saraid216 12y ago
> (And no, putting more money into them probably won't solve the problem.)
I don't disagree with this, but I generally advocate for higher funding because more resources provides more manuevering room, which makes it less risky to try new things. Sometimes it feels like Americans only believe that desperation-driven innovation is valuable, so we drive everyone to desperation by taunting them with scarcer and scarcer resources until they collapse and die.
I'd rather see us pour resources into education. It won't fix anything by itself, but you'll stop getting responses of, "We can't afford to try doing that," every time a change is suggested.
> This society produces one thing: private sector politicians.
This is so quotable. I like it. Not sure I agree with it, but I like it aesthetically.
- michaelochurch 12y agoI don't disagree with this, but I generally advocate for higher funding because more resources provides more manuevering room I agree. Also, the good teachers deserve to be paid better. Paying them properly is just the right thing to do. Moreover, funding public schools out of property taxes is also rifuckulously classist. If the Wired article is right and the challenges of the 21st-century really do require creative thought (and, I think, they will) then we may get a front-row seat, in the US, for a society laid low by its own inequality. Disallowing 95+ percent of people, mostly based on born social class, to have access to creative work has rendered us subordinate, apathetic, and weak... and, because of it, we may not be up to the challenges bearing down on us.