> There are many interesting aspects to this report from the Pacific > Research Institute, but for this thread, the item of interest is, > > http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/rel/2007/pr07-02-15.html >> Finance System = F >> Inflation-adjusted funding per pupil has gone up >> dramatically over the last decade, but too many of >> these tax dollars are being wasted on state programs >> that have yet to show success. Further, the state >> continues to create new education programs, most of >> which do not have any accountability mechanisms to >> prove their worth.
Ah, the old "accountability" dodge. But what does that last sentence mean, exactly?
"do not have any accountability mechanisms to prove their worth."
Does that mean: a) they lack any accountability mechanisms?
or does it mean b) they lack any accountability mechanisms that PROVE their worth, but they do have accountability mechanisms?
or does it mean c) they have accountability mechanisms that prove their LACK of worth?
My sense is that it's simply the first: no accountability mechanisms. But the reader is supposed to think that it's the last option: they're not worthwhile. Clearly that's what Haim wants us to think. But it's not what's actually said, is it? It's not that these programs have been proved unworthy, but simply that nothing has been set up to determine whether they are. The question of worth is open, and into the vacuum steps old Mr. Negativity. How predictable and convenient.
Of course, where, exactly, are the proofs of the worthiness of the programs he advocates for? Or those that Mr. Tanner or Dr. Bishop or Mr. Rosa advocate for?Accountability wasn't even a gleam in the eye of right wing public education enemies back then. > > Yet again, we see vast sums of money being poured into one end > of the education financing pipeline. And yet again, we have > nothing to show for it. > > Haim > Je me souviens > >