I need a demonstration of when more money was ever "thrown" at public schools that matched the richer districts.
Can you provide me with this evidence?
Maybe I framed that incorrectly. You always hear the arguments that giving more money to the urban/rural schools will increase performance. I just don't see the correlation as something that will solve the issue.
I do think that more money would improve the conditions of the school and prevent the overcrowding and reduction in programs that is going on, but ultimately I don't think it solves the core issue of needing to place a greater priority on education.
Both of my in laws are retired teachers who taught in rural and urban areas. The biggest issue they had when they retired was the fact that a lot of the power that the teachers had in the past has been stripped down to the point that they can't do shyt. The no child left behind laws ensure that administrations "pass along" cats who have no business being advanced just to prevent the schools from losing their federal funding. Parents taking the word of their kids over the teachers and shyt.
I dunno man, sorry for the rant. But I just don't believe that money is the key.