The Seattle Times editorializes about education, which as usual, leaves me totally confused.
Our state is at a crossroads. An ambitious education plan recently approved by the Legislature was a major hurdle crossed. The next hurdle is a question: where do we go from here?
Um… how about funding it?
Debates in this state about education reform rarely rise above the level of money.
You know, except during the past legislative session when an ambitious and expensive education reform package was passed to great editorial applause, without any discussion whatsoever about how we’re going to pay for it. Surely the Times isn’t implying that these reforms won’t require a major investment to turn all schools around?
Granted, it will take a major investment to turn all schools around, but without planning and general consensus, the cash will be useless.
Okay then, I’m all for planning and consensus. Now where are we going to get the cash?
Federal input wouldn’t be intrusive, it would be welcomed.
Silly me… the money comes from the federal government, of course, because those are magical dollars pooped by fairies and wood nymphs, and don’t in any way come from the kinda income and estate taxes that the Times argues would be so unfair and wealth-destroying should they be collected in Washington state.
Education stimulus dollars account for the largest spending increase ever.
That’s swell, but what’s this about the largest spending increase ever? I thought we just dramatically slashed education spending in WA, even with the federal stimulus dollars? Am I missing something?
This state will use much of the money to mitigate education cuts imposed by the state Legislature, but millions will be available with varying degrees of flexibility. The new rule in spending should be money spent on unproven efforts is money wasted.
Wait… so do “education stimulus dollars account for the largest spending increase ever,” or did we just “use much of the money to mitigate education cuts imposed by the state Legislature”…? And if the latter, how does this in any way implement the “new rule” the editorial kvells about. I’m soooo confused.
Encouraging signs from Duncan, and President Obama, are the two men’s refusal to simply throw money at public education’s many problems.
Right, because otherwise, gutless legislators, cheered on by gutless, anti-tax editorialists, might just use the federal money thrown at them to “mitigate education cuts” rather than applying it to public education’s many problems. And we would want that to happen.
Consider this the warm up before Congress delves into reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind law. The massive law should be tweaked, necessary improvements include additional flexibility and money, but not abandoned.
Again with the shilling for more federal dollars. Can’t debates in this state about education reform ever rise above the level of money? The editorial mentions money nine times; I thought we were talking about education?
(Oh, and note to the editors who edit the editors: that last sentence doesn’t scan well, so you might want to consider rearranging the clauses. But then, I graduated from public schools, so what do I know?)
So there we have it, the Seattle Times editorial board’s usual clarity of thinking: we need to spend more money on education, but federal money, not local money, and we want to be careful not to throw money at the problem because more money won’t do any good anyway, which is why we shouldn’t even be talking about money, investments, cash, dollars or money in the first place.