Jump to content
Last login: Monday, June 27, 2011
Interesting article. I'd love to look at the map, but the link is broken.
What I have a hard time with is the fact that a district loses money *even from sick days.* To me, that just doesn't make sense. Just like you and I get a certain allowable number of paid sick days from our jobs, it seems like there should be something like that for students. I mean, MOST people get sick during the year at some point.
As an analyst, I had some problems with the fact that the article focused on the biggest pots of money. Since high schools have the most students, they'll have the biggest pots, but also the most absentees. So it makes sense that the high schools would lose the most money, due to absences. I think it should have been percentage based - but then, that might not have made the impact that raw dollar$ has.
And I thought this was a rather telling quote: "“We base funding on students’ attendance in school. That’s where they’re losing their money,” said Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica, who introduced the bill. “Should we change that? I certainly would like to,” she said. “The problem being the state doesn’t have the money in order to do that.”"
So the STATE has no financial incentive (which is separate from their altruistic incentives) to a) change the law b) encourage healthy habits to reduce illness c) fix our health insurance gap for the neediest families or d) fund low-cost public transportation for low-income areas. All of which cost money... to get more students to school and then have to pay MORE money to the schools. A vicious, vicious cycle...
June 27, 2011 at 10 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
First, I am a BIG fan of classical music. I often listen to XLNC1 when driving the kids to school, which is a nice, peaceful way for all of us to start the day. (I switch over to KPBS after I drop them off. Sorry, but news just does not seem to be kid-friendly.) I'll also stream classical music over the internet at work (xlnc1.org or weta.org). So, in that respect, I'm looking forward to KPBS's classical music stream. To me, it equals more choices in classical music. The fact that it's streaming does not diminish the quality for me, since I have earphones at work and an Apple Airport at home, which has great sound quality. There are other systems out there that will allow you to listen to streaming radio; you don't have to buy an HD radio.
Second, I also love Performance Today. I really enjoy the insight behind the pieces, which you don't get on any of the classical music "stations" (radio or internet). So I'll miss that. :-( But! A quick Google search revealed that I can go to http://performancetoday.publicradio.org/ and listen to today's edition! Whew.
Third, when KPBS switched over to classical music at night in the early 2000s, my husband and I were actually sad. We enjoyed listening to the BBC as we went to bed. I know, we're super-romantic that way. ;-) So, we're looking forward to the change back.
To sum up: 1)There's a good (and expanding!) source of classical music on the internet. And still a pretty good source of classical music on the radio. 2) Also thanks to the internet, we don't have to miss Performance Today. 3) Looking forward to hearing more BBC.
May 20, 2011 at 11:12 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2013 KPBS