Va. House candidate talks crime and education

May 16, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Potomac News

The multicolored poster on the wall to the left of Albert Williams seemed especially appropriate after he spoke.

Comments
1 - 20 of 61 Comments Last updated Sep 11, 2010
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#1 May 24, 2009
Yeah, yeah; whatever. Politicians. They promise the moon and stars and then when they GET there to be able to use their voice; they do what they want regardless of what the people say.

I've heard this sorry line before. Crime is no better; and neither is education. NEXT...
inquiringmind

Richmond, VA

#2 Aug 12, 2009
Dinah wrote:
Yeah, yeah; whatever. Politicians. They promise the moon and stars and then when they GET there to be able to use their voice; they do what they want regardless of what the people say.
I've heard this sorry line before. Crime is no better; and neither is education. NEXT...
Alternative School Funding. What's your view on this?
SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. v. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS
No. 71-1332.

Argued October 12, 1972
Decided March 21, 1973
Excerpt: OPINION OF JUSTICE MARSHALL, J., DISSENTING (Alternatives to School Funding).
[ Footnote 98 ] Centralized educational financing is, to be sure, one alternative. On analysis, though, it is clear that even centralized financing would [411 U.S. 1, 131] not deprive local school districts of what has been considered to be the essence of local educational control. See Wright v. Council of the City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 477 -478 (BURGER, C. J., dissenting). Central financing would leave in local hands the entire gamut of local educational policymaking - teachers, curriculum, school sites, the whole process of allocating resources among alternative educational objectives.
A second possibility is the much-discussed theory of district power equalization put forth by Professors Coons, Clune, and Sugarman in their seminal work, Private Wealth and Public Education 201-242 (1970). Such a scheme would truly reflect a dedication to local fiscal control. Under their system, each school district would receive a fixed amount of revenue per pupil for any particular level of tax effort regardless of the level of local property tax base. Appellants criticize this scheme on the rather extraordinary ground that it would encourage poorer districts to overtax themselves in order to obtain substantial revenues for education. But under the present discriminatory scheme, it is the poor districts that are already taxing themselves at the highest rates, yet are receiving the lowest returns.
District wealth reapportionment is yet another alternative which would accomplish directly essentially what district power equalization would seek to do artificially. Appellants claim that the calculations concerning state property required by such a scheme would be impossible as a practical matter. Yet Texas is already making far more complex annual calculations - involving not only local property values but also local income and other economic factors - in conjunction with the Local Fund Assignment portion of the Minimum Foundation School Program. See 5 Governor's Committee Report 43-44.
A fourth possibility would be to remove commercial, industrial, and mineral property from local tax rolls, to tax this property on a statewide basis, and to return the resulting revenues to the local districts in a fashion that would compensate for remaining variations in the local tax bases.
None of these particular alternatives are necessarily constitutionally compelled; rather, they indicate the breadth of choice which would remain to the State if the present interdistrict disparities were eliminated.
[ Footnote 99 ] See n. 98, supra.
[ Footnote 100 ] Of course, nothing in the Court's decision today should inhibit further review of state educational funding schemes under state constitutional provisions. See Milliken v. Green, 389 Mich. 1, 203 N. W. 2d 457 (1972), rehearing granted, Jan. 1973; Robinson v. Cahill, 118 N. J. Super. 223, 287 A. 2d 187, 119 N. J. Super. 40, 289 A. 2d 569 (1972); cf. Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971).[411 U.S. 1, 138]
Cary

Richmond, VA

#3 Aug 19, 2009
This needs to be researched!
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#4 Aug 20, 2009
Government aside, in the EARLY years of this country, PARENTS educated their children and were responsible for seeing they were educated.
That should be the case again. These days many parents have college educations. They are NOT incapable of teaching their children the basics and then turning them over to a private tutor when the requirements exceed the parent's educational level.
I also think that if a person wants to start his/her own school, that should be permitted WITHOUT INTERVENTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NEA. Let the "buyer beware". If people WANT a school, it WILL be provided for one way or another.
As it is things are WAY too politicized.
Dee

Richmond, VA

#5 Aug 22, 2009
Dinah wrote:
Government aside, in the EARLY years of this country, PARENTS educated their children and were responsible for seeing they were educated.
That should be the case again. These days many parents have college educations. They are NOT incapable of teaching their children the basics and then turning them over to a private tutor when the requirements exceed the parent's educational level.
I also think that if a person wants to start his/her own school, that should be permitted WITHOUT INTERVENTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NEA. Let the "buyer beware". If people WANT a school, it WILL be provided for one way or another.
As it is things are WAY too politicized.
Thats being done now. It's called Home and Private Schools
Frank

Richmond, VA

#6 Aug 22, 2009
Aim school money at state classrooms
School funding formulas are a convoluted concoction of goals, ranging from pressing to perplexing, all glued together by great globs of desperation. When the economy is strong, governors and lawmakers target popular programs or areas where schools have demonstrated weaknesses. When the economy sours, formulas are tweaked to survive the crisis, with less thought to long-term implications.
The result is neither perfect nor sacred.
Faced with the unavoidable need to cut education funding, Gov. Tim Kaine last year proposed a revision to Virginia's Standards of Quality formula that would cap state funding for support staff, which covers administrators, clerical workers, instructional aides, library staff, custodians, technology specialists and guidance counselors. Under his plan the state would help cover the cost of one support staffer for roughly every four teachers.
Without that cap, state aid for public schools would increase $893 million in the 2010-12 budget. With the cap, the state's obligation would grow by just $139 million.
No one pretends this is a happy solution. Virtually all cities and counties spend more than the Standards of Quality formula requires. State leaders have an incentive to keep the standards artificially low because it saves them money, but the burden for covering the true cost of education falls heavily on property taxes as a consequence.
When state aid is reduced, smaller, poorer schools suffer the most and inequities in the system become more pronounced.
Kaine nevertheless makes a rational argument in favor of a support staff cap. Ratios already guide state funding for instructional positions, so it makes sense that similar formulas be established for nonteaching positions.
The governor also points to an uptick in the number of support workers in recent years. That increase is partly due to increasing federal regulation and the growing number of students requiring special education. Schools have been forced to hire more clerical workers to handle the paperwork so teachers are free to focus on students with learning disabilities.
But a preliminary analysis suggests that the old funding formula may influence school hiring decisions in unexpected ways. A consulting firm hired by the Department of Education found that schools have increased their reliance on instructional aides in the classroom. There is conflicting research on whether aides have a positive impact on student achievement, with much of the variation due to differing training requirements. The proper mix of teachers and aides should be determined by academic performance, not by anomalies in a funding formula that cap the number of teachers but not aides.
While Kaine's justification for creating a support staff cap has some merit, the ratio he suggests is largely driven by the size of the hole in the state budget, not by best practices. Finding a perfect formula, however, is an impossible task. Only a handful of states fund schools based on personnel ratios. Most establish cost-per-student formulas. Virginia incorporates elements from both methods, but under Kaine's plan the state is shifting more toward top-down decision-making that reduces flexibility at the local level.
When paired with adequate funding, greater state control can ensure that all students receive a consistent, equitable education. In the absence of adequate funding, it's fair to question whether state leaders should be calling the shots.
Kaine has proposed an imperfect change to an imperfect school-financing system.
Even as they struggle this year to balance their budgets, state education leaders must commit themselves to finding a better way. Spending decisions should be driven by innovation and academic excellence, not arcane equations.
Source URL (retrieved on 08/19/2009 - 21:31):
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#7 Aug 22, 2009
"Frank", and this has WHAT to do with educating kids? Why speak when you have NOTHING to say.
Frank

Richmond, VA

#8 Aug 23, 2009
Dinah wrote:
"Frank", and this has WHAT to do with educating kids? Why speak when you have NOTHING to say.
This is America.
Melvin

Richmond, VA

#9 Aug 23, 2009
It all ties in together.
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#10 Aug 23, 2009
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>This is America.
Not for much longer. The likes of yourself has helped to insure it happens.
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#11 Aug 23, 2009
By the way "Frank" you're the one who helps create the "money pit".

Money goes in; nothing comes out. Wonder where it really goes. Campaigns perhaps; special "counselors" for the children to indoctrinate them, free food, and all the other things you DON'T need that the pitiful, ignorant taxpayers pay for that just SOUNDS good, when you can't even seem to provide specifics.

When you do, and the taxpayers disagree; you simply change the name of the action and it's the same.

You think you're fooling someone, but you can't fool us all.
Frank

Richmond, VA

#12 Aug 24, 2009
Dinah wrote:
By the way "Frank" you're the one who helps create the "money pit".
Money goes in; nothing comes out. Wonder where it really goes. Campaigns perhaps; special "counselors" for the children to indoctrinate them, free food, and all the other things you DON'T need that the pitiful, ignorant taxpayers pay for that just SOUNDS good, when you can't even seem to provide specifics.
When you do, and the taxpayers disagree; you simply change the name of the action and it's the same.
You think you're fooling someone, but you can't fool us all.
This is America
tom

San Leandro, CA

#13 Aug 26, 2009
Intresting
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#15 Aug 28, 2009
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>This is America
Prove it. Where? I don't see it.
gina

San Leandro, CA

#16 Aug 28, 2009
This should be researched. Very intresting
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#17 Aug 29, 2009
gina wrote:
This should be researched. Very intresting
Unless you people from another state know what's going on in the education system here, it's best to find it just that: "interesting" and do more listening than suggesting.

I don't know about any other public school system in the country, but the ones in the northern Virginia area are real good at "indoctrinating" kids instead of teaching them. They come up with these fine sounding titles to their programs that are supposed to help kids. The programs are NOT what parents think they are and they end up doing more harm than good. If parents don't like it, they simply change the name of the program.

They get over 50% of the personal property taxes people pay them in this county, they get corporate help from the local businesses,(some 'incentive' from the government on that one) they get federal funds for every student they have that files and yet they still can't get enough money. Shoot they even get a special deal with the county to keep the local swimming pool open for the kids and programs during prime hours that is reserved for them.

They used the money they got, not to build another school, not to fix the ones they have, not to increase teacher's pay, not to make sure every student HAS a textbook, but a new admin building and "leadership center".

They have rule after rule for the students they can't enforce, still have bullying, a gang and drug problem and parents who want to use the schools as a glorified babysitting service so the can go to work. The non English speaking kids are put in with the English only speaking ones. "Special kids" are mainstreamed. Discipline SUCKS. It's amazing to me that any teacher WANTS to work there. Mostly what I hear is "I just love kids". Some of them don't even realize what's going on. They're too busy being yes men to the NEA. AND lastly they are feeding kids lies posign as education.

I could write a book on what's wrong and how to fix the problem and it doesn't require a lot of money.

When private schools and homeschoolers can use less money and do a better job; that should tell people something. And the public school advocates have been trying to discredit them for years.
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#18 Aug 29, 2009
Oops; typo. That's "posing".
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#19 Aug 29, 2009
Oh, and the root of crime is twofold:

One, you have a generation of kids that grow up not knowing right from wrong because they're so called parents refuse to "manipulate" them by training - and I MEAN INCREASINGLY- poking their noses into family life where it doesn't belong. And you think it's bad NOW; wait till Obama and company's "HEALTH CARE" PLAN becomes law.(have you read the 1K page document? you should. and keep up with the 'changes')

You have an economy going down the tubes making it harder for a DECENT person to earn a living.
You have -get this now- LAW UPON LAW passed--but NONE of the reasonable ones are enforced. So you get a generation of people who think,'what the hey, the criminals get away with it, why should I suffer?' The law is applied sporadically and capriciously.

You have people and cops with a malignant attitudes towards people who won't tow EVERY line-right or wrong.

And faith is increasingly pooh pooed as being a "religion" or "cult" that hurts instead of helps people. They take the EXCEPTIONAL cases of failure and magnify them.

Hey, our world and welcome to it.
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#20 Aug 29, 2009
inquiringmind wrote:
<quoted text>
Alternative School Funding. What's your view on this?
SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. v. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS
No. 71-1332.
Argued October 12, 1972
Decided March 21, 1973
Excerpt: OPINION OF JUSTICE MARSHALL, J., DISSENTING (Alternatives to School Funding).
[ Footnote 98 ] Centralized educational financing is, to be sure, one alternative. On analysis, though, it is clear that even centralized financing would [411 U.S. 1, 131] not deprive local school districts of what has been considered to be the essence of local educational control. See Wright v. Council of the City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 477 -478 (BURGER, C. J., dissenting). Central financing would leave in local hands the entire gamut of local educational policymaking - teachers, curriculum, school sites, the whole process of allocating resources among alternative educational objectives.
A second possibility is the much-discussed theory of district power equalization put forth by Professors Coons, Clune, and Sugarman in their seminal work, Private Wealth and Public Education 201-242 (1970). Such a scheme would truly reflect a dedication to local fiscal control. Under their system, each school district would receive a fixed amount of revenue per pupil for any particular level of tax effort regardless of the level of local property tax base. Appellants criticize this scheme on the rather extraordinary ground that it would encourage poorer districts to overtax themselves in order to obtain substantial revenues for education. But under the present discriminatory scheme, it is the poor districts that are already taxing themselves at the highest rates, yet are receiving the lowest returns.
District wealth reapportionment is yet another alternative which would accomplish directly essentially what district power equalization would seek to do artificially. Appellants claim that the calculations concerning state property required by such a scheme would be impossible as a practical matter. Yet Texas is already making far more complex annual calculations - involving not only local property values but also local income and other economic factors - in conjunction with the Local Fund Assignment portion of the Minimum Foundation School Program. See 5 Governor's Committee Report 43-44.
A fourth possibility would be to remove commercial, industrial, and mineral property from local tax rolls, to tax this property on a statewide basis, and to return the resulting revenues to the local districts in a fashion that would compensate for remaining variations in the local tax bases.
None of these particular alternatives are necessarily constitutionally compelled; rather, they indicate the breadth of choice which would remain to the State if the present interdistrict disparities were eliminated.
[ Footnote 99 ] See n. 98, supra.
[ Footnote 100 ] Of course, nothing in the Court's decision today should inhibit further review of state educational funding schemes under state constitutional provisions. See Milliken v. Green, 389 Mich. 1, 203 N. W. 2d 457 (1972), rehearing granted, Jan. 1973; Robinson v. Cahill, 118 N. J. Super. 223, 287 A. 2d 187, 119 N. J. Super. 40, 289 A. 2d 569 (1972); cf. Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241 (1971).[411 U.S. 1, 138]
Same old whine; just in 'lawyer speak'.
Dinah

Dumfries, VA

#21 Aug 29, 2009
Besides, if this person is running for office of the Virginia House, he should be concerned with WEIGHTIER matters, like where is he/she going to stand when the fed goes too far?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dumfries Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
All Star Solutions - Richard Hare 47 min customer 12
Is anybody order Frome this website before? 3 hr Love Hannah 1
Fight Leads to Shooting Outside McDonalds in Da... Aug 25 Gbhhj 1
Get fit while bonding! Aug 23 KangaUSA 1
Mei Fullem, Jenn Mei Elliott Aug 23 abusenomore 1
power washing Aug 17 Nick Kovach 1
Police seize 77 animals in PWC (Aug '10) Aug 8 Crazyness 8
•••
•••
•••

Dumfries Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Dumfries People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Dumfries News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Dumfries
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••