jad1

Actually, I would expect for somebody moving from one district to another to go through some sort of process. Some of my examples were met to meet the ridiculousness of your request, but like kids applying for magnet programs, I expect that kids switching districts would have to prove they are a good student in need. And by the way, since I pay property taxes, and income taxes, and kids DO SWITCH districts where I live, I ALREADY DO PAY FOR THIS. So jump off the high horse. I'm a patron of what I preach.

Oddly enough, I believe it would destroy private schools.

No.

We're talking about a Harvard education and a high school education. Harvard can be funded federally, and that's what you're pestering me for. Since I pay federal taxes, you're welcome to them, but you have to go through the proper channels. Now if you want me to pay for your high school education, which does accept federal funds, but is mostly locally funded by district tax payers, that's a differerent situation. Write me a 1,000 word essay on why you deserve funding. Send me your latest tax forms, junior high transcripts, and social security number. Send me letters from 3 references. I'll also need a credit report. I have a review board that will judge your request. And keep in mind, while I might not be able to fully fund your high school education, I do have some interesting work study opportunites. Have you any experience being a butler? Those are the terms.

Not for private schools, no. I know there's a ton of problems with public education, many of which have been brought up here. I'm not even going to pretend that I know how to fix it. But if we can rescue kids who are excelling in failing schools, why shouldn't we? Let them move to better disctricts. Sure it costs money in the short term, but in the long run it will benefit the student and the community they live in.

Too bad more people didn't think like me. You could have a Harvard diploma on your wall right now. Oh well.

Through taxes, yes, people fund public education. My taxes have been paid to the government, who will disperse the funds. So if you're as smart and deserving as you say you are, the money's waiting for you. Fill our the federal forms and it's yours. Personally, I hope it goes to kids in the inner city.

Dude, I gave that money to the IRS April 15th. Fill out the forms, get approved, and it's yours.

Great, good for you. So your parents could do all that for you, but it would have been wrong for them to try to get you into a better public school system?

I didn't go to Harvard or Yale, but got a quality college education thanks to government grants and loans. My mother was an ace at filling out those applications and forms, perhaps you could have used someone like her to help you out. Thanks to the career I was able to persue due to my college education, I've been able to pay back the goverment ten fold through income taxes. I've also been able to buy several cars, a house, a bunch of durable goods, and a sh!tload of other things that I really didn't need. I'm a kick-ass capitalist and a first rate free enterpriser(?). See how it works? It's not a give away, it's an investment. Invest in a smart kid in high school, and they'll pay it back ten-fold over the rest of their life.

That's a great idea, unfortunately as long as you fund education at the district level, it's not going to happen. It's not case that a parent doesn't feel like paying the extra taxes for their child's education, it's the case that they can't afford the price of moving into the better neighborhoods in that makes up the district. And textbooks cost money, computers cost money, after-school activities cost money, and teachers cost money. So while parents can do alot to make up the gap, it still is a money issue.

I think schools should be able to determine if a student is intelligent, don't you? See they have these things called tests... So if poor parent of a smart kid in an underfunded school asks the school board to move his kid into a better funded district, the answer should be no? The smart kid shouldn't have access to computers, up-to-date text books and possibly better teachers? How is stiffling good students because they are poor a good precedent?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, for that reason, I would have left you in the inner city school.

You choose to pay more by moving into a community with higher property taxes or higher cost homes, because the house is located in a desirable school district. That's what I meant.

You're still tying public education to affordiability, which to me, is completely wrong. An intelligent kid should be given every opportunity to the best education possible, and not held back by their parents' pocketbook. And, by the way, you didn't say "kids from other districts" you said "kids from the inner city." There's a completely different connotation between the two.

Actually, I wrote this in response to the original author wanting to keeps his kids insulated from "inner city kids." He was willing to pay more tax money to do so, so my question to him was, why not go all the way? I own a home, work hard, and while I'm not wealthy, my household income is well into six figures. And I support inner city kids attending suburban schools. So rich people aren't bad. The pursuit of wealth isn't bad. Owning a nice house (like the one I own) isn't bad. Denying a talented kid an education because their mom and dad can't afford to buy into a community with a good public school. That's bad.

People of the district, hmm, so kids in Amherst recieve an Amherst Regents diploma? I always thought they received a New York State Regents diploma. I know I did.

The home team would get the majority of the take, with remaining going to revenue sharing. So it would be 80/20, with the 20% being split among the league. So teams would still be motivated to sell naming rights, and the league and it's teams would be compensated for giving value to the naming rights. And if Snyder and Jones don't like it, let them split from revenue sharing and negotiate their own TV and merchandise deals. And when either of their teams go 4-12, and the revenue streams dry up, they can B word about going bankrupt.

It's a PUBLIC education. All kids, no matter the economic status of their parents should have access to it. Just because you choose to pay more in taxes doesn't give you the right to build a wall around the school and keep others out. If you want to deny access to "inner city kids" (whatever that implies), pay the extra dough to go to a private school that will keep the "inner city kids" out.

So put up some real money and dump your kids in private school, where they can learn racism the old fashioned way. Claiming that equality in education is equivalent to being in the USSR is downright moronic.

This is a bit myopic. First off, Snyder would only be asked to give a portion of the naming rights to revenue sharing, not the whole thing, so he still is making money off the naming rights fee. Second, he owns an NFL team, not an MLS team. If he owned the latter, I doubt the fee he received for naming rights would be nearly as high. The value to the sponsor, FedEx, comes from being associated with the NFL, not just the Redskins. Third, FedEx bought the naming rights to advertise their company. They get wide exposure thanks to the television contracts negotiated by the league, not just Snyder. So when Monday Night Football broadcasts from FedEx field in D.C., FedEx can thank the NFL for the national exposure. An 80-20 split of these revenues, between the team and the league, is not unreasonable. It continues to generate a profit for the home team, and returns money to the organization that makes the high fees possible in the first place.

Separate and unequal. Great idea for a public school. Why don't we just implement a caste system. Your money should protect you from the 'great unwashed,' right?

That's true. However, the only speed threat the Bills had at outside receiver at the beginning of last year was Evans. And as a GM, you can't count on a rookie starting from day 1. The Bills offense, while Evans and McGahee were working their way into the starting lineup, was slow and predictable, which contributed to the team's lousy start. On the other hand, with McGahee and Evans in the starting lineup, and Parrish working his way into the lineup, the Bills offense will look completely different from the one that started last season.

I think that this is Donahoe's biggest mistake as GM of the Bills. The Price move was great, as it netted the team McGahee, and even freed up cap space to sign Spikes and Adams. But he let the WR corps get too slow. If Gilbride's offense ocassionally sputtered with Moulds and Price on the outside, it completely died with Shaw and Reed on the outside. He started to address the problem Evans, but Evans didn't work his way into the starting lineup until 5 or 6 games into last season.

I think you're referring to Chris Webber.