Greedy thieves can never solve anything in saving tax dollars for the public. Instead of cutting back on the size of government with the bureaucrats sitting in an office in Jackson that in no way serves the interest of the public, guviment decides to cut back on the things that effect the public in a worse way, such as; furlough teachers, raise tuition, quit offering subjects that a child may need to get a degree, etc. The only things that the public should be paying for in the form of taxes is roads, security and education. Why are these targeted instead of doing away with some of the agencies and departments that are riding the backs of tax payers while serving no useful purpose.
What does our government really concern itself with? Hunting; how many days more or less will the public be able to hunt each season. If the legislature is going to spend it’s time on such ascinine issues, just do away with the fish and game department if the legislature is going to make the decisions. How much would this save taxpayers?
From the words of that renowned prognastigator; stupid is as stupid does.

I’m not sure I understand your point, in all sincerity.

Education is a very important function at the state level (but not federal).  And if, at the district level, they are going to have reduced funding, then they must be given the business flexibility as to how to deal with that reduced funding.  If Jackson sends less money, but doesn’t cut back on mandates, then....didn’t the ‘94 Congress run on on unfunded mandates?  Kinda a double screwing, so to speak.  So, to reduce mandates as they reduce funding makes sense.

Maybe some districts are better off to lay off personnel.  Others, to furlough.  Others are a mix.  Districts may need even more flexibility.

If your overall point is that the legislature is micro-managing, I disagree.  This is a case of them devolving more authority to local officials.  We should generally have more of this not less.  This is closer to the strip club bill.  Giving local officials and voters more control over their local lives.  This one comes with the addition of Jackson provides the money; so, it’s only common sense that they provide flexibility via less mandates.

For those that complain (and I suspect that teacher has reason to believe she’s unlikely to get laid off; thus, to hell with others that may get laid off w/o the flexibility), come up with a better plan.  But if there is less money, something’s gotta give.  It’s common sense.

I’m happy to point out that many inside education get this basic truth of life.  It’s sad that the ones who don’t get most of the attention.  As Jackson sends less money, it only makes sense that they provide locals with options (less mandates).  To somebody that doesn’t agree, I say ‘what’s your plan’?

But on your big point (if I understand correctly), the legislature should send more authority to local levels (as DC should send to state levels).  Let people be most governed by the level of gov’t. closes to them.  There are probably too many laws vs. not enough.

Back in the horse and buggy days a school consist of a building, teacher, children and maybe a blackboard. The children of that day that were able to go to school in most likelyhood got a better education than children are getting today. Why; the emphasis was on instruction to the child to teach them math, reading and writing. Today a school consist of roughly twelve teachers and a bureauracy of several times that of teachers drawing large salaries for being part of the education scheme. Sports in the olden days was to give the children a means of burning off extra energy and give them a rest from academics. Today it is the main theme of most schools with academics taking a back seat.
Where did we go wrong in educating our children? By letting government bureaucrats get control of the system instead of parents doing so.
Washington has a bureauracy of a department of education with a budget of over seventy billion dollars a year and over five thousand employees and the federal government doesn’t own the first school; they’re all owned by the states or are private.
As everything taken over by the government it can only fail. Examples; postal service, railroads, “education”, and anything where tax dollars is handled by politicians. Unless crooked politicians so desired we would have a balanced budget and no deficit.
Anyone saying they don’t know what the problem is has their head in the sand.

There is some truth to what you say, but it’s less true in Mississippi than a lot of states.  Our teachers are not unionized for the most part, for ex.  And Education wasn’t emphasized sufficiently until relatively recent years.  That’s bad, but the bright side is that a lot of the crap in a lot of places didn’t take hold here and by the time, we got serious, an awareness that many of those fads were crap had began.

That said, there are certainly and clearly problems.  If somebody wants a comprehensive change, they could and should propose that.  We just have to be careful to not screw up the good things we do have, just b/c they’re not perfect.  In other words, people who believe it’s bad have a responsibility to propose real solutions.

Also, you mentioned parents. Parents should get involved and good schools usually have the consistent characteristic of having significant parental involvement.  This is as much on the parents, though, as the schools.  And also, parents should support discipline for their kids in schools.  Much of the decline in education is tied to less discipline.  And too many parents (and many are conservatives unfortunately) don’t want their kids disciplined at school.  If their child is in trouble, they go jump on the school instead of supporting it.  Just saying, that we have to remember as we complain about others, we have to look in the mirror.  We can’t control others, but we can control ourselves.  And should keep that in our focus.