Ever think about how strange it is that — on a purely aesthetic level — schools for children are such dismal, ugly spaces? It'd be impossible to repurpose a typical school for any other business purpose at anywhere near the local market rate; people feel icky just standing in one
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @webdevMason @CodeHitchHiker
Strange? No. Disappointing? Yes. It takes money to build aesthetically pleasing spaces. It seems that schools can't afford to educate students and fund teaches let alone make the space pretty.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CrshOverride @webdevMason
We understand it takes money to build aesthetic spaces, and that the education is underfunded (the food is gross, too). I find all of these things strange, mainly because of how the money is funneled. My daughter's school is in a nice area, the staff is paid fairly well -pic.twitter.com/WEy9jGbveW
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
and the school is maintained and actually is pretty nice. They have newer computers, books are replaced and updated often, etc. This is a public school. The more underfunded areas, which are particularly drab spaces with outdated materials and broken down furniture -
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
have the most underpaid staff, too. It's a question of why there isn't more tax dollars spent on education as a whole, and where money is being spent in various districts. By definition, yea, it's strange.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Average gov funding per student per year is ~$12.5k across the US; a median classroom with 20 students represents $250k of gov funds per year! Two problems: (a) dramatic disparities across districts; (b) a bloated institutional hierarchy where admin + consultants get fed first
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.