"The main message? Our government is continuing to invest too much in the military, and in militarized law enforcement, and not nearly enough on prevention, people, and our communities."
Good point identifying schools are mostly state funded. But the overall conditions of public schools demonstrate additional funding is a necessity. Allocating some of the massive Pentagon Contractor funding to the younger generation who will have to curb everything previous generations left for them to fix seems like a good idea. The discrepancy in spending between the two area’s is obscene plus STEM will be the best way to try and fix the climate crisis. At least thats my take on it all.
Many large contractors have made it very politically difficult to cut their products, to the point where there is defense spending that the Pentagon has stated it does not want and Congress adds back in. For these large projects like an expensive fighter plane, production will be spread across most Congressional districts. A vote against it means a vote to forgo jobs, even though they’re essentially useless make-work jobs.
The condition of schools is uneven, in addition to falling short. The federal government does provide some funding to help schools that have high levels of poverty under Title 1 programs, which helps with the greater need associated with poverty. My mother worked at a Title 1 school for many years.
Some common funding models use a tax district that is associated with each individual school district. The effect is that already poor districts don’t have the funds to keep up schools, trapping poor students in a cycle of poverty. At the same time, wealthy districts can afford lavish facilities and low student-teacher ratios. Families often buy in a neighborhood specifically for the local schools. For this reason, I favor a switch to Oregon’s funding model. Most funding is doled out from the state general fund, ensuring at least a good baseline funding level. Oregon still has its problems, but basic inequality is much less of an issue.
Good point identifying schools are mostly state funded. But the overall conditions of public schools demonstrate additional funding is a necessity. Allocating some of the massive Pentagon Contractor funding to the younger generation who will have to curb everything previous generations left for them to fix seems like a good idea. The discrepancy in spending between the two area’s is obscene plus STEM will be the best way to try and fix the climate crisis. At least thats my take on it all.
Many large contractors have made it very politically difficult to cut their products, to the point where there is defense spending that the Pentagon has stated it does not want and Congress adds back in. For these large projects like an expensive fighter plane, production will be spread across most Congressional districts. A vote against it means a vote to forgo jobs, even though they’re essentially useless make-work jobs.
The condition of schools is uneven, in addition to falling short. The federal government does provide some funding to help schools that have high levels of poverty under Title 1 programs, which helps with the greater need associated with poverty. My mother worked at a Title 1 school for many years.
Some common funding models use a tax district that is associated with each individual school district. The effect is that already poor districts don’t have the funds to keep up schools, trapping poor students in a cycle of poverty. At the same time, wealthy districts can afford lavish facilities and low student-teacher ratios. Families often buy in a neighborhood specifically for the local schools. For this reason, I favor a switch to Oregon’s funding model. Most funding is doled out from the state general fund, ensuring at least a good baseline funding level. Oregon still has its problems, but basic inequality is much less of an issue.