Erm...don't you guys think this will lead to the school perceived as the "best" becoming over crowded and the schools perceived as the "worst" emptying out? Only children fortunate enough to be able to provide their own transportation could go to the "best" district school while children reliant on busing would be stuck in the school they are districted to, regardless of its quality. This could very easily become an issue of class.
We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit.
Whoops, skipped the transportation bit...
But that would be difficult to work out. Busses would have to work long, meandering routes, cavnassing entire counties for students. Imagine Bus from School A has to go down Baker Street to pick up Johnny who doesn't like School B, which he was districted into. The Bus from School B also has to go down Baker Street to pick up the kids content with its school...we're seriously over complicating busing. Not to mention the extra money which would need to be allotted for the extra miles driven several times every day.
And yes, schools are allocated money based on the projection population size. This bill, however, would cause one or two schools to see their population swell dramatically, probably enough to require campus expansion...while other schools in the county sit nearly empty. New teachers would need to be hired, and where better to hire them from then the empty schools? Perhaps this bill would not serve to make school districts any better, but instead consolidate the number of schools into mega-schools. In my real life county in the Atlanta Metro Area, you would likely end up with three schools, each with 7,000 students, minimum. All of this done at great expense to the federal government (which I understand would be paying for the restructuring rather than local governments) for dubious gain.
I appreciate what you're attempting to do with this bill Clarence, and I would certainly like to see this conversation carried out in the senate, but as a real life high school student I fear the unintended consequences this would have in our imaginary world.
We are concerned that all sides in many educational contraversaries are not being fairly debated in the public class room. Teachers being denied tenure because of idealology not merit.
But why shouldn't it be? I say this doubting that JCL would appreciate the curriculum that a secularist like me would introduce. But excluding religion from the purview of public education merely because it is a controversial subject is foolish. Why ignore a significant part of the human experience, a part that is essential to understanding our history, culture, and behavior?
(Yes, I understand that this has nothing to do with JCL's point.)
You know very well I meant proselytize
Religion should be taught in a historical context in history class, not in Science classrooms as fact.
