A former student, Aleysha Ortiz, is suing the city of Hartford and the local board of education. Ortiz alleges she graduated without learning how to read or write. She claims it was due to negligence and lack of proper support for her developmental disabilities.
The lawsuit claims Ortiz was denied necessary testing for dyslexia. It also claims she was removed from special education curriculum and only tested for developmental disabilities on her last day of school, revealing significant unmet educational needs.
whose the one willfully misreading things now? That was a comment about the school seeking to blame anyone else. the ‘They’re’ refers to the school district mentioned at the start of the paragraph. The point there was that Ortiz was getting rubber stamped through everything. more funding most likely wouldn’t make a significant impact. What I can almost certainly assure you is that standardized testing won’t do a damned thing to stop it. Which is why Bush’s No Child Left Behind fucked up education. What ended up happening with NCLB is that schools were forced to teach to the test, meaning that rather than providing a well rounded education, they were instead basically providing test prep.
Most states in fact use a similar system of funding, with state funds being tied to a formula based on the number of students and other demographic factors. Sorry if you misunderstand me. That’s not tied to party platform. What is tied, though, is how much funding that actually becomes. there is a broad and common problem where schools in urban areas are significantly underfunded because people like you insist that local taxes should pay most of it. maybe, maybe not. that’s a different argument, and once again: Does not change that most of hartford’s funding comes from state sources, and republicans in the state legislature bitching about lack of educational standards reads more like manufactured outrage than anything else. At least to me. Maybe I’m wrong, but I rather doubt it.
The socioeconomic factors that give blue states the higher house hold income and gdp you mentioned? yeah, a large part of that is…you know. better public schools. Funny how that works. there is an exceedingly strong, and exceedingly global correlation between public school funding and long-term economic growth (by long term it’s in decades, not two or three years.)
Paragraph 1: 1) Use proper nouns more. 2) have you been to Hartford? 3) Teachers wouldn’t need to teach for a test that was so simple as to not graduate an illiterate high school senior. But I agree the standard NCLB imposed was very detrimental.
Paragraph 2: “people like you insist that local taxes should pay most of it.” Go back re read what I’ve written. I support a ban on any funding education from municipalities. It should be ideally all done on a state level to balance accountability with equality of outcome.
My stance is that in practice municipal property tax pays for most education. Not that that is a good thing.
Hartford’s funding is mostly subsidized by the state with the municipality paying little. That is an issue as they receive (under the current system) what is needed from the state but not what is needed from the municipality. Because Hartford is broke. This is the fault in an education system where each town pays for a part of the educational spend with municipal property taxes.
The idea that anyone would pay taxes to support a k-12 education that doesn’t even produce literacy is not manufactured outrage. It demeans the name of the state. CT doesn’t come up much and it is an embarrassment when it does because of such a failure.
Paragraph 3: Yeah I agree. The issue is that you can’t spend more on public schools when you don’t have more money to do so. Which creates a circular issue.