Conservatives like to complain that liberals have a misguided belief that more spending leads to better education. I’m inclined to distrust their motives (cutting corners in basic government spending is often penny wise, pound foolish), but when I read stuff like this, I have to consider that they may have a point. High school accreditation should be used to attest to the academic rigor and standards of a school - period. Leave it up to the cities like Beverly to decide how much loose computer wires and the like are important to them, and how much tax burden they’re willing to shoulder to give their kids state of the art facilities. More to the point, the whole point of caring about shoddy facilities, leaky plumbing, and rusty bunsen burners to begin with is out of concern that substandard facilities has a potential psychological effect on children’s learning and sends the message, particularly to those in poorer areas. But if that’s not the case, if academic performance is fine, then why worry? I know my apartment pipes are leaky, its windows drafty, and I don’t think it’s affected the quality of my academic work adversely.
No comments have been added to this post yet.