[geeks] geeks Digest, Vol 86, Issue 11

[Lionel Peterson]

On Jan 20, 2010, at 1:48 AM, wa2egp at att.net wrote:

> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at gmail.com>
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 9:20 AM, wa2egp at att.net wrote:
>>
>>> As long as they're not too busy trying to make a living and personal
>>> agendas can be minimized.  I really don't see it happening.
>>
>> Look at it the other way, rather than buy a very expensive house and
>> pay obscene property taxes just to get their kids in a "good" school
>> district, a family could buy a cheaper house where taxes are lower  
>> and
>> get a good education for their kids. Maybe one parent could afford to
>> stay home/not work? Get together with a few like-minded parent in  
>> your
>> neighborhood and each parent may only have to supervise the collected
>> kids one day a week. And 'classes' could be held at night/on weekends
>> around parent's work schedule...
>>
>
> You're assuming that the better schools are in the more expensive
> areas which is not necessarily true.  It's more of how the money
> is used rather than the amount of money.  My district spends a lot
> of money per student but too much is spent on middle management and
> basically useless workshops and consultants.  I think the parental
> involvement you are talking about is more than most parents will
> invest.  That's why I don't see it happening.

I was addressing buying habits - people bid up house prices in towns  
where the schools are considered 'better', be it for academic,  
athletic, class size, facilities, etc reasons.

Abbott district spend lots of money, but the house prices in the  
district are lower. Money doesn't buy a good school district, but it  
can lure the admin and teachers to build one.

Lionel