Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

On 2007-12-05, Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Doug Carter posted:

On 2007-12-04, Neil Gould wrote:

In the US, primary education is not a national priority, nor a
state-level priority, and in many if not most communities, not a
local priority. On a national level,...

Regardless of priority, the presumption that U.S. education is
underfunded is a persistent myth as is the belief that funding levels
and results (educated students) are causally related.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa126.html

To begin with, I did not write that "education is underfunded" in the
sense that you are suggesting or that your cited reference uses. If you
wish to make such an argument, it would be a good idea to quote my entire
paragraph so that others can see how you have intentionally distorted its
meaning.

Sorry. I missunderstood your meaning; my bad.

To support your conclusion based on the article, which IMO is suprisingly
poor for the CATO institute, one has to determine how much of the funding
actually reaches the individual student, as it is only "per pupil" if the
pupil directly benefits from it. The article was written in 1990, and
basically supports the NEA statement that there was a 31% increase in
government spending "for education" during the prior decade. What do we
know about that period of time that might raise questions about the actual
value of that money? How much did your car or your house cost in 1980 vs.
1990? I can tell you that my 1984 vehicle cost about 1/3 of what the same
make and model cost when I replaced it in 1991 (and the cost of the same
make and model was almost 60% more when it was replaced in 2001). Also,
expenditures that were typical in 1990 were non-existant in 1980, for
example purchases of personal computers. So, to me, that 31% increase is
not positively impressive.


I don't think that the rate of increase in education funding has ever been
below the inflation rate in this country.

Even so, my point was not about the *amount* of money, it was about the
PRIORITIES, in particular how that money is spent. In our community, we
spend more per pupil than all but one other community in the state, but we
are not getting that kind of return on our investment. I (and the state
auditor FWIW) attribute it to a top-heavy school system. So, on what do
you base the relevance of your "Regardless of priority..." as an argument
for our lack of success in educating these youth?

Again, I read your post too quickly and missunderstood it. I agree completly
with your last paragraph. Lets start at the Federal level by disolving the
Department of Education as my fellow Republicans promised, but failed to do in
the mid '90s. Next, lets bust the state monopoly on primary and secondary
education.