A former student, Aleysha Ortiz, is suing the city of Hartford and the local board of education. Ortiz alleges she graduated without learning how to read or write. She claims it was due to negligence and lack of proper support for her developmental disabilities.
The lawsuit claims Ortiz was denied necessary testing for dyslexia. It also claims she was removed from special education curriculum and only tested for developmental disabilities on her last day of school, revealing significant unmet educational needs.
so you’re saying it’s not republicans that are predominately concerned with defunding education?
or that republicans are not routinely “surprised” when their policies cause problems- exactly like this?
interesting. You’re right. I’m just flinging mud. I couldn’t possibly have a valid point (like maybe don’t get rid of the fucking department of education.)
By the way. Your stats on funding sources is wrong. (PDF warning, but here’s the budget break down as of April '24
a screen grab of the overall breakdown:
I was stating the CT Republicans had little to no impact on the outcome of this student’s education because they have little impact on local politics in such a blue area. And resulting should have no reason to presume that any policy stances of their have an impact on the people of Hartford.
If Trump stripped the Dept of Education on day one that still would be irrelevant here as this student is the victim of over a decade of the school system failing them.
On your BTW, my point wasn’t about Hartford’s education costs but more on broader educational costs. In suburban CT well funded schools get nearly 70% of their expenses paid for by local property taxes. The failure of the city of Hartford to raise funds on the municipal level vs other municipalities is relevant here. Which of course stems from the difference in economics status between their citizens. Hence my critique of local funding playing such a big role.
CT has some of the finest public schools in the nation. But they sure as hell are not the ones in Hartford.
“well funded schools” in what I’m guessing are… rich, white, suburbs.
hartford is lowest in terms of per-capita income. So blaming the city for their residents not being wealthy is… rather a dick move.
If CT republicans are more eager to dump money on education int heir state than CT dems are, then they’re an entirely different breed of republicans than anywhere else in this country. Which is why education funding in red states is vastly exceeded by education funding in blue states.
which brings me back to my original point: It’s patently disingenuous, hypocritical and totally on brand, for a republican to call out failures as being related to funding when they’re predominately the ones who predominately called for the funding to be cut. Reduced education spending is a core part of the republican agenda. And it has been for as long as I can remember.
Personally, I rather expect the issue has more to do with school administration rather than funding. Of course, the school district would blame a lack of funding- that’s somebody else’s fault. They’re certainly not going to admit to systemic failures.
You somehow manage to willfully misread or miss the entire point. Yes of course Hartford can’t match the per student municipal funding of suburban Connecticut. That is why I said that the issue is the school funding is being done on the municipal level.
Municipal property taxes paying for schools reduces the equalizing effect that state funding should have.
Yes, New England Republicans do tend to be much different than other states. No educational spending is not solely tied to party platform that ignores that blue states on average have higher house hold incomes and GDP due to historical & socioeconomic factors.
This is just yelling at clouds rather than seeking meaningful solutions to resolve issue. You are complaining that senators are upset about the failure of the educational system. Btw one of those senators introduced legislation to prevent this from happening again. Link.
Did you read the article? What do you think “State Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding and Sen. Eric Berthel said in their Dec. 19 letter. ‘We continue to seek accountability as to how this student was illiterate when she graduated and how the system failed her year after year’” they meant when they wrote this.
whose the one willfully misreading things now? That was a comment about the school seeking to blame anyone else. the ‘They’re’ refers to the school district mentioned at the start of the paragraph. The point there was that Ortiz was getting rubber stamped through everything. more funding most likely wouldn’t make a significant impact. What I can almost certainly assure you is that standardized testing won’t do a damned thing to stop it. Which is why Bush’s No Child Left Behind fucked up education. What ended up happening with NCLB is that schools were forced to teach to the test, meaning that rather than providing a well rounded education, they were instead basically providing test prep.
Most states in fact use a similar system of funding, with state funds being tied to a formula based on the number of students and other demographic factors. Sorry if you misunderstand me. That’s not tied to party platform. What is tied, though, is how much funding that actually becomes. there is a broad and common problem where schools in urban areas are significantly underfunded because people like you insist that local taxes should pay most of it. maybe, maybe not. that’s a different argument, and once again: Does not change that most of hartford’s funding comes from state sources, and republicans in the state legislature bitching about lack of educational standards reads more like manufactured outrage than anything else. At least to me. Maybe I’m wrong, but I rather doubt it.
The socioeconomic factors that give blue states the higher house hold income and gdp you mentioned? yeah, a large part of that is…you know. better public schools. Funny how that works. there is an exceedingly strong, and exceedingly global correlation between public school funding and long-term economic growth (by long term it’s in decades, not two or three years.)