Mitt's Model for America

This from a recent speech in Oklahoma.

"Look, I take my model from states like Oklahoma. Look at the states that are growing and adding jobs. They have right to work. They have low taxes. They have plentiful energy and entrepreneurial spirit."

That makes me worry a bit that Romney wants to model America after Oklahoma. Certainly he knows they rank 45th out of 50 in median household income. Not a great model to reshape the whole nation by.

Well, it is always difficult to use specific states as a model for idealism.

Certain aspects of a state may be appealing. In this situation, Oklahoma does have a rock solid business climate, no doubt helped by low taxes. Then again, it has pretty subpar educational rankings, and the third lowest expenditure per student ratio in the country, probably a contributor being those low taxes.

One could flip the coin and use some of the higher taxed states that have correspondingly higher educational rankings, but certainly worse business climates.

Not to mention the multitude of factors that individualizes each state (population, resources, neighbors, location, federal assistance, etc.).

Not at all.

The Federal and State governments work best when the former's role is oversight, not when the latter's role is subservient.

With that being said, I completely agree with minimum standards in education, set by the Federal Government.

And since the former also essentially is responsible for health care (Medicare and Medicaid funding), I agree with its intervention there too.

Interestingly, if you use your argument above, then you also would agree that Romney was incorrect in attempting to treat all other states (everything) the same {as Oklahoma}.

This from a recent speech in Oklahoma.

originally posted by djbrow:

Certain aspects of a state may be appealing. In this situation, Oklahoma does have a rock solid business climate, no doubt helped by low taxes. Then again, it has pretty subpar educational rankings, and the third lowest expenditure per student ratio in the country, probably a contributor being those low taxes

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What did you mean exactly by subpar educational rankings?

Where is your chart that shows that the more states spend per student the higher the results?

Care to guess why you failed to include that?

Actually, care to guess why you couldn't find it yourself?

Google is spelled with two 'o's. Your posts don't give me any confidence you already knew that.

But here is a source to help.

Do you still need me to help explain this to you?

...

Spending rankings tell policymakers even less about what matters most: student performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., spends $15,000 per pupil, the most in the nation, but students there come in dead last on the Nation's Report Card. In 2003, 90 percent of fourth- and eighth-graders in D.C. failed reading proficiency.

This is not a fluke. In inflation-adjusted dollars, per-pupil spending in American public schools has more than tripled since 1959. During that period, standardized test scores have stagnated. If increased spending were a real measure of success, the states would have an "A." But test results indicate otherwise...

I surely shouldn't have to explain to you that the main ingredient to a successful student is a parent or parents that care and demand that the child apply themself in the schooling.

{{{{Do you still need me to help explain this to you?}}}}

What exactly are you explaining? Is it your argument that involved parents increase a child's educational achievement?

I mean, that is pretty brilliant.  Next thing, you will suggest that the sky is, in fact, blue, and the Pope is indeed Catholic.

But with all of your amazing proclamations, it still doesn't change the fact that the bottom 20 states with per pupil expenditure also, coincidently, rank in the latter half of educational rankings.

It certainly doesn't suggest, per se, that throwing money is the solution. But it does show that not throwing money isn't the solution either.

And as Wall said, DC is hardly a good example. DC has two kinds of public schools....very rich and very poor.

Originally posted by djbrow:

What exactly are you explaining? Is it your argument that involved parents increase a child's educational achievement?

I mean, that is pretty brilliant. Next thing, you will suggest that the sky is, in fact, blue, and the Pope is indeed Catholic.

But with all of your amazing proclamations, it still doesn't change the fact that the bottom 20 states with per pupil expenditure also, coincidently, rank in the latter half of educational rankings.

It certainly doesn't suggest, per se, that throwing money is the solution. But it does show that not throwing money isn't the solution either.

And as Wall said, DC is hardly a good example. DC has two kinds of public schools....very rich and very poor.

My point is that you can't directly argue that simply throwing dollars at a problem will suddenly solve the educational problems that challenge our society as you have infered.

Maybe you could do something creative by tieing welfare bonuses to Parent-Teacher interviews having part of the students grade tied to parent envolvement or something along those lines. What do I know? I'm just a parrot for fox news anyway.