Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Change
Management
To the Editor:
The complex and difficult topics of county taxes and the school budget are on the front burner, as is clear from the account of the April 29th supervisors’ hearing.
Looking over that report, one wonders why the discussions avoided the principal questions: How have the schools performed? What return do we have for the steadily increasing per student investment?
The superintendent concentrated on citizens’ love for their children and the excellence of our teachers, concluding, “That may require the sacrifice of a tax increase.”
Why didn’t he concentrate on the schools’, i.e., on his, performance? That is his job, his responsibility.
The reason seems obvious: the schools’ performance is not what it should be! Is this due to fund shortages? Surely not, when between 1980 and 1990 per student spending, in constant dollar, doubled! The rate of increase has slowed since but has not reversed. The current amount approximates $6,200 per student.
Results? Higher spending has bought continuing unsatisfactory, in some instances lower, test scores.
Why is this? With money ruled out, there are many reasons: TV, lack of support at home, poor discipline in some classrooms, etc. But the underlying cause is simple: public education is a monopoly.
The inevitable results: costs rise and rise as quality falls or at best stalls.
In a free and competitive market for goods and services, a performance like that of our public schools would result in rapid change.
In recent years, many famous companies — American Express, General Motors, IBM are some — faced similar problems: costs up, customers down, losses mounting.
97.4%