U.S. Supreme Court finds a way in 1973 Rodriguez decision on school funding?

I think that’s true in business, too. You ideally want your people to buy into the change, rather than trying to secretly sabotage it.

My sister in the early 1970s had some class periods in which two classes joined for an hour or so with 2 teachers and around 50 or 60 students. And from the ‘70s, I can remember speech therapy generally being lousy and crummy.

And by the way, I myself am probably on the spectrum, too, and I’m a good test-taker. Now at my age, I’m 56, I have not been diagnosed by a professional, and few people my age will have been.

It's actually pretty much nessicery to make change in the long term in public policy on a local and state level : because voters can kick you in the behind every two years and the "deep state"/beuracracy is nowhere near as deeply entrenched. And if you have a population who cares enough about education to support a major reform, they certainly will care if you play them false
 
It's actually pretty much nessicery to make change in the long term in public policy on a local and state level : because voters can kick you in the behind every two years and the "deep state"/beuracracy is nowhere near as deeply entrenched. And if you have a population who cares enough about education to support a major reform, they certainly will care if you play them false

In quite a few of the Southern states that were in question, though, the "good ol boy network" is just as entrenched, if not more, than the bureaucracy on the federal level. And the population, quite frankly, doesn't care enough about education for "those kids" to support any major reform.
 
The US is a third-world country?
Sadly, yes, in some ways.

Now, I also very much preach the side that this remains an eminently winnable game. There are plenty of smart medium things we can do, see how they work and then roll from there.

For example, we can adjust overtime rules so that companies have more of an incentive to spread out available jobs. Not saying that they can’t work their people 45, 50 hours, etc., as needed, just that it would often make more sense to hire new people. As I see it, this is the largest single factor which can increase the number of middle-wage and above jobs.
 
In quite a few of the Southern states that were in question, though, the "good ol boy network" is just as entrenched, if not more, than the bureaucracy on the federal level. And the population, quite frankly, doesn't care enough about education for "those kids" to support any major reform.

I fully agree. Hence why I said "and if you have a population that cares enough..." Those States will reform if the Feds force them too, but given they aren't going to raise the money to bring the level of "those kids" up to that of the more affluent districts (assuming again that it's just a demand of funding equity vs. results equity) than the result will likely be local networks coming together to build up the private school system and hollowing out the public system until everything is uniformly poor.

For example, we can adjust overtime rules so that companies have more of an incentive to spread out available jobs. Not saying that they can’t work their people 45, 50 hours, etc., as needed, just that it would often make more sense to hire new people. As I see it, this is the largest single factor which can increase the number of middle-wage and above jobs.

This is a slightly different discussion and probably should be kept to Chat or another situation, given it's not related to education equity and the legal cases around it.
 
Top