middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Most public schools, K-12, get their funding from the government based on how many days each student comes to school. Theoretically, everyone could pass with straight D's, and, as long as everyone has perfect attendance, the school board is all happy.
Shouldn't it be based on test scores, instead?
I mean, people with perfect attendance still tend to be the best students, academically, right? Shouldn't we fund schools more directly on what they're supposed to achieve?
For example, assuming that, in a given state, schools receive $1,000 from the state for each day that the child spends at least four out of the seven hours in class. If there are 180 days in a school year (five days in a week, nine weeks in a quarter, four quarters in a year), that would mean that a student with perfect attendance would get his school $180,000 each year.
If he's making straight A's, then, aside from funding, what's the point of him actually coming? Sure, give him zeros on all the things he misses because of absenteeism, but what if you're just lecturing or reviewing?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather my kid have straight A's, and miss a few days, than him to have straight D's and perfect attendance, any day of the week.
The best students are only there because they have to be, but they spend the majority of class just twiddling their thumbs. I know, because I was like that, many many years ago.
Instead, shouldn't that funding from the government be based on their test scores? Assume that the state has standardized tests on each of the four main subjects: Math, science, English, and social studies. For each of those subjects, an F gets you zero grade points, a D gets you one, C gets you two, B gets you three, and an A gets you four, just like in the GPA system, for a total of 16 grade points. The government will fund that school with $11,250 ($1,250 from the feds, $5,000 from the state, $2,500 from the county, and $2,500 from the school district) for each grade point, so a straight A student would get the school that $180,000 maximum that they want so badly... only this time, the school would have to actually educate the kids, rather than just make them sit in class.
Thoughts?
Shouldn't it be based on test scores, instead?
I mean, people with perfect attendance still tend to be the best students, academically, right? Shouldn't we fund schools more directly on what they're supposed to achieve?
For example, assuming that, in a given state, schools receive $1,000 from the state for each day that the child spends at least four out of the seven hours in class. If there are 180 days in a school year (five days in a week, nine weeks in a quarter, four quarters in a year), that would mean that a student with perfect attendance would get his school $180,000 each year.
If he's making straight A's, then, aside from funding, what's the point of him actually coming? Sure, give him zeros on all the things he misses because of absenteeism, but what if you're just lecturing or reviewing?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather my kid have straight A's, and miss a few days, than him to have straight D's and perfect attendance, any day of the week.
The best students are only there because they have to be, but they spend the majority of class just twiddling their thumbs. I know, because I was like that, many many years ago.
Instead, shouldn't that funding from the government be based on their test scores? Assume that the state has standardized tests on each of the four main subjects: Math, science, English, and social studies. For each of those subjects, an F gets you zero grade points, a D gets you one, C gets you two, B gets you three, and an A gets you four, just like in the GPA system, for a total of 16 grade points. The government will fund that school with $11,250 ($1,250 from the feds, $5,000 from the state, $2,500 from the county, and $2,500 from the school district) for each grade point, so a straight A student would get the school that $180,000 maximum that they want so badly... only this time, the school would have to actually educate the kids, rather than just make them sit in class.
Thoughts?